- (1.) THIS is an appeal by owner of the vehicle under Sec tion 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award directing pay ment of compensation to respondent.
(2.) APPELLANT is owner of a heavy vehicle having 35 feets in length. When the vehicle was moving on the road on 27-11-1984 at about 2. 40 p. m. , it hit respondent resulting injuries on the body of respondent, who was moving on a cycle alongwith another. It is the case of claimant that because of injuries sustained by him he after getting medical treatment has become permanently disable. Initially he made claim for lessor amount an subse quently he has amended the claim stating that the lawyer on when he has depended could not appreciate the nature of the injuries for which lessor com pensation was claimed. This amendment has been allowed and parties have produced documents on the basis of amended claim. Case of appellant is that when driver of the vehicle found that a rickshaw occupied by children was coming from the front and respondent was moving on his cycle with another on the left side, in order to avoid accident with the rickshaw driver of the vehicle turned the vehicle towards its left. Front portion of the vehicle crossed the respondent, but respondent was hit by fuel tank at the rear. Thus, respondent is responsible for the injuries sustained by him and driver of the vehicle is not negligent as he had no chance to mark the cyclist after the front portion crossed him. Tribunal has considered all the materials on record and has found that the driver of the vehicle was negligent and the injuries sustained by res pondent permanently disabled him for which he is entitled to the compensation claimed, which includes the amount spent by respondent for his medical treatment. This award is being assailed before us by appellant.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for appellant Shri Sinha vary strenuously contended that in case where the accident was on account of dashing of the vehicle from rear part of vehicle entire irresponsibility cannot be put on the driver of the vehicle as he has no chance to see the behind. It cannot be a general rule tho ugh on the facts and circumstances of the case it may be possible. It is to be kept in mind that the vehicle is heavy one about 35 feets long and driver of such vehicle is required to be more cautious then any other lighter vehicle. It is not disputed that a rickshaw was found coming from the front injured is moving on cycle of the left side. In such situation the driver should have anticipate that where is likelihood of accident either hitting rickshaw or hitting cyclist on left side. Driver anticipated first on to avoid which he turned left side. On the fact of the case we are satisfied that it is the negligence of driver. Thus, Union of India, who is owner of the vehicle is liable for negligence of its driver. Coming to quantum we find that Tribunal has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter and has determined just compensation. Although, Mr. Sinha wanted to utilise mathematics for reduction of compensation, it can be said that mathematics in such circumstance may be good servant, but cannot be a master of situation for determination of compensation. Court with judicial experience has to determine the reasonableness of the compensation for which Parliament has used the term 'just compensation'.;