PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the owners of a tractor under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 read with Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal by its order dated 20th of April, 1991 passed in MACT No. 18 of 1984 awarded a sum of Rs. 18,000 only with costs of petition to the claimant respondent in the present appeal.
(2.) AWADHESH Kumar, the claimant-respondent aged about 7 years received injury on 2.1.1984 at 3. p.m. when he was returning to his house from his school. When he reached near his house, grandson of the appellant No. 1 (Bansdev) who was driving tractor No. UTO 1172 rashly and negligently came and dashed him. Awadesh Kumar filed a claim petition through his guardian and next friend claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the injuries sustained by him on account of the accident dated 8.1.1984. It was stated in the petition that the petitioner has lost his left thigh and received grievous injuries which has affected his mind. It was further stated that on account of the accident the prospects of his future life has become bleak. The claimant was hospitalized from 2nd of January, 1984 to 16th January, 1984 in District Hospital Jaunpur. Thereafter he was shifted to Varanasi for treatment at B.H.U. He was hospitalized there from 29th February, 1984 to 15th March, 1984. He has claimd Rs. 32,000 as compensation, Rs. 8,000 towards medical expenditure and Rs. 10,000 for mental and physical pain. The claim petition was defended by denying the fact that the tractor No. UTO 1172 was involved in the accident. It was further pleaded that Anil Kumar, the grandson, who was allegedly driving the tractor has no knowledge of driving a tractor. In sub and substance the defence was of total denial. The Tribunal has held that the tractor in question was involved in accident and Awadhesh Kumar received injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor. Challenging the said order the present appeal has been filed by the owners of the tractor. The claimant has also filed a cross-objection for further enhancement of the compensation amount. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the order of the Court below.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal holding that the tractor in question was involved in the accident or it was being driven rashly and negligently are perverse and against the material on record. He also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In contra, the learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is towards the lower side and in any view of the matter the Tribunal committed illegality in not awarding the interest from the date of application to the date of actual payment of the compensation.;