- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Suresh Chandra v. State Of U.P And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, aged about 18 years, was working as a Beldar and met with an accident on 8-5-1989 while pouring water on the wheels of a roadroller moving on the road. The accident resulted in amputation of the appellant's right leg. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah, found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the person driving the roadroller belonging to the first respondent. The regular authorized driver was on leave and the cleaner, who had no licence, drove the roadroller on the date of the accident.
The appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking Rs 5,30,000. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs 1,45,000 with interest at 12%. The respondent appealed to the Allahabad High Court in FAFO No. 994 of 1994. While the High Court agreed with the Tribunal on negligence, it reduced compensation to Rs 85,000 with interest at 12%, reasoning that the claimant would have obtained only that amount under the Workmen's Compensation route. The present appeal by special leave challenged the High Court's reduction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the Tribunal’s compensation award (from Rs 1,45,000 to Rs 85,000) on the reasoning that the claimant would have received only Rs 85,000 if he had approached the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation.
- Whether, on the facts found (including that the accident occurred while the roadroller was moving and due to the driver’s negligence), the Tribunal’s award required interference.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that both the Tribunal and the High Court had concurred on the key finding that the accident occurred due to negligence of the person who drove the respondent’s roadroller, and that the roadroller was in motion at the time of the accident. Against this factual backdrop, the Court rejected the High Court’s approach of reducing compensation by equating it to what might have been available under the Workmen’s Compensation framework.
The Court held that this reasoning was not correct on the facts of the case, particularly given that the negligence was attributable to the person driving the roadroller belonging to the respondents. The Court also emphasized the appellant’s age (18 years at the time of the accident) and the lifelong impact of the amputation. Additionally, it observed that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was itself “not much,” and therefore did not warrant reduction, especially through an appeal preferred by the State.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court (dated 22-9-1994) and restored the Tribunal’s award in MAC No. 129 of 1989 dated 21-5-1994.
The direct consequence is that the appellant’s compensation stands restored to Rs 1,45,000 with interest at 12% (as awarded by the Tribunal), and the appeal was allowed with costs. The opinion does not indicate that any broader precedent or new legal rule was laid down beyond correcting the High Court’s reduction on the stated reasoning.
K. Venkataswami, J.— 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 the person who drove the roadroller belonging to the respondents. The further 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.
Alert