Judgment:
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sidhi, in Claim Case No. 49 of 1994, dated 13.11.1995.
2. Bharti Singh (claimant) was a regular student of B.A., Part II in Government College, Waidhan. On 3.2.1994 at 12.30 p.m. when she came out from the college to road for going to her house, jeep No. CPZ 4160 driven rashly and negligently by Banwari Sai (driver) hit her. She fell down and sustained serious injuries on her body including fracture to femur. She fell unconscious. Matter was reported to the Police Station, Waidhan by Arvind Kumar Singh and claimant was shifted to the hospital. The injuries suffered by the claimant were serious, the doctor at Waidhan Hospital advised taking the claimant to District Hospital, Sidhi. However, the father of claimant admitted her in N.C.L. Hospital, Waidhan for treatment where the doctor, looking to the condition of the claimant, advised for taking her to Banaras. Accordingly, the claimant was shifted to Banaras on 8.2.94 where she was treated at Anand Poly Clinic Research & Training Centre Private Limited, Varanasi and subjected to surgery on 23.2.1994. She was discharged from hospital on 7.3.1994. Thereafter, she was taken to Banaras by taxi on 8.4.1994 for check-up as per the advice of doctor. By this time the claimant had started walking with assistance of crutches. According to the claimant, she sustained permanent disablement due to the accident which was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. As a result of the accident, she could not resume her study. She states that she suffered injuries stated in para 9 of the petition for which the respondents are jointly and severally liable. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,41,000 is claimed.
3. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have filed joint written statement. They submit that the accident had not taken place due to the fault of the driver who was driving the jeep carefully and at slow speed. According to them, when the jeep crossed by the college, claimant came and ran across the road. Driver applied the brake with full force and attempted to save the claimant but she fell down after striking against the bumper of the jeep resulting in simple fracture. The accident was beyond human control. It could not be avoided and the claimant was responsible for it. She could be treated in hospital at Sidhi but she sought treatment at N.C.L. Hospital and Banaras unnecessarily which has resulted in huge expenditure for which she is not entitled. It was a case of simple fracture, therefore, suffering of permanent disability by the claimant did not arise. They also submit that under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, father of claimant is not entitled to make good the loss he suffered in his business/trade/ profession while attending the claimant from time to time.
4. On the pleading of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed issues of contest between them and on appreciation of evidence led in the case, came to the conclusion that the claimant and the driver contributed equally to the accident which resulted in the injuries to the claimant for which both were responsible, therefore, out of total amount of compensation of Rs. 60,000, claimant would be entitled to Rs. 30,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 25.4.1994 till realisation. It may be recorded here that for determining compensation of Rs. 60,000, Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000 towards the medical expenses which award has been challenged in this appeal since the claimant is not satisfied with it. It is prayed that award of Rs. 4,41,000 be made in favour of the claimant.
5. The learned Counsel for parties were heard, record perused.
6. The first thing for consideration is whether the accident was the result of contributory negligence of the claimant and the driver of jeep. Claims Tribunal found that both of them contributed equally. For coming to this conclusion it took into consideration the fact that the claimant was crossing the road when the jeep came. She should have taken care while crossing it. We are unable to agree with appreciation of evidence in the case by the Claims Tribunal. The driver was taking the jeep through road where Government Degree College was located. He was not new to the place, knew that students generally cross it when the college opens and closes. The students are normally standing or crossing the road, therefore, he should have been vigilant in driving the vehicle when he passed through the college area. On the other hand, he was driving the vehicle with speed which is clear from the fact that claimant was dragged by the jeep to some distance before it came to halt. It is also stated by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that brakes were applied with full force to avoid the accident. It further demonstrates that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by driver. Claims Tribunal has also found that the driver did not blow horn while driving through this area. All these facts are enough to show that it was the driver who was responsible for committing the accident, driving the jeep rashly and negligently thereby causing serious injuries to the claimant. One of such injury was to femur. The way claimant was treated demonstrates that she suffered serious injuries. She was treated at hospital at Waidhan, N.C.L. Hospital, where the doctor could not handle the case due to serious injuries and she was shifted to District Hospital, Sidhi where also doctor advised for taking claimant to Banaras, where she was treated at Anand Poly Clinic Research & Training Centre and subjected to surgical operation and discharged on 7.3.1994. Thereafter, also she visited Banaras hospital again as per advice by the doctor on 8.4.1994 moving with help of crutches. As per medical certificates permanent disability suffered by the claimant is to the extent of 50 per cent. With this background, award of Rs. 60,000 is not correct. The claimant was 20 years old at the time of accident, studying in B.A., Part II. She states that after this accident she could not resume her study meaning thereby she could not complete her study and her prospects in life, being the daughter of doctor, annihilated.
7. Consequently, with the aforesaid background, we are of the opinion that the claimant should be entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the injuries, the disability suffered by her in this accident. The claimant has filed medical expenditure bills approximately for Rs. 17,000. Therefore, Rs. 17,000 are awarded towards the medical expenses. She has also filed bills for expenditure incurred on transportation through taxi for Rs. 17,500. Therefore, this amount is awarded for the transportation expenditure. Of course, the claimant was attended by her father but it is not possible to determine the exact loss suffered by him nor grant of the same is possible. However, it is undisputed that she was attended for 20 days by her father or any other attendant, she being a woman. Towards this a sum of Rs. 5,000 is awarded. Result is, the claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,39,500 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. However, parties are left to bear their own costs.