1995 INSC 0955
                                                   Suresh Chandra

                                                           Vs

                                             State of U.P. and Another

                                          Civil Appeal No. 9933 of 1995

                                        (J. S. Verma, K. Venkataswami JJ)

                                                      09.11.1995

                                                     JUDGMENT

K. VENKATASWAMI, J

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard counsel on both sides.

3. This appeal by special leave is preferred against the Judgment and Order in, FAFO No. 994 of
1994 of the Allahabad High Court dated 22-9-1994. The appellant while working as Beldar, to be
more specific, while pouring water on the wheels of the roadroller moving on the road, met with an
accident on 8-5-1989. As a result of the said accident, the appellant's right leg had to be amputated.
As the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the person who drove the roadroller
belonging to the first respondent, the appellant moved a claim petition before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Etawah, claiming a sum of Rs. 5,30,000. The Tribunal found that the negligence
was on the part of the person who drove the roadroller. It may be mentioned at this place that the
regular driver who was permitted to drive the said roadroller was on leave and the cleaner who had
no licence factually drove the roadroller on the date of accident. The Tribunal, on the basis of the
evidence placed before it, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,45,000 with interest at 12%.

4. Aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs. 1,45,000 the respondent preferred an appeal to
the High Court. The learned Judge while concurring with the finding of the Tribunal that the
accident had occasioned on account of the negligence on the part of the person who drove the
roadroller, reduced the compensation from Rs. 1,45,000 to Rs. 85,000 with interest at 12%. For
reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 1,45,000 to Rs. 85,000, the High Court has accepted
the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents herein (appellants before it) that the claimant
would have secured only Rs. 85,000 by way of compensation if he had moved the Commissioner of
Workmen's Compensation. We do not think that the High Court was right in accepting that
reasoning on the facts of this case when the finding is that the accident had occasioned while the
roadroller was on the move and the negligence was on the part of be person who drove the
roadroller belonging to the respondents. The fuller fact to be noted here is that the appellant was just
18 years old at the time of accident as found by the High Court and he has to live with that
throughout his life. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal itself was not much warranting as
appeal to be preferred by the State.

5. In the circumstances, the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and that of the
Tribunal in MAC No. 129 of 1989 dated 21-5-1994 is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed
with costs.