JUDGMENT 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The Tribunal under issue Nos. 1 and 2 has come to the conclusion that the claimant respondent sustained injury by tractor No. UTO 1172 owned by Bansdev and driven by Anil Kumar on 2nd of January 1984. It was being driven rashly and negligently by Anil Kumar. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that except the statement of Awadhesh Kumar, there is no eye-witness of the accident. Awadhesh Kumar was admittedly aged about 7 years and no reliance could be placed upon his statement. Besides Awadhesh Kumar two other persons were examined as PW land PW 2 before the Tribunal. It is correct that PW 1 and PW 2 are not eye-witnesses of the accident. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon the statement of Awadhesh Kumar and I see no illegality in the order of the Tribunal on this score. Awadhesh Kumar is himself victim and has received injuries of grievous nature. There is nothing on record to show as to why Awadhesh Kumar will tell a lie and will falsely implicate the owners of the tractor and its driver. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any statutory provision or case law to show that the statement of a child witness can under no circumstance be taken into consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal has accepted the version of the claim petitioner as correct and there is no valid reason to take a different view.
6. Consequently the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant received injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor No. UTO 1172, needs no interference in the appeal.
7. The next question is regarding the award of just compensation to the claimant. 'Just' denotes equitable fairness and reasonable. It should not be a bonanza for the claimant and at the same time the amount should not be an eye wash. In the present case the claimant who was a child of 7 years at that time claimed damages under the following heads:
8. It has come on record that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Medical report was filed before the Tribunal. But the doctor was not examined. The fact remains that claimant has filed the dishcarge card of District Hospital Gyanpur and medical prescriptions as well as case summary and discharge record of the hospital. Evidence has also come on record that the claimant got treatment from S.S. Hospital, Varansi. A medical certificate issued by S.S. Hospital, Varanasi is Paper No. 13C. Cash memos showing the purchases of medicines were also filed. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the cash memos are for purchase of medicines worth around Rs. 4,000.
9. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed illegality in awarding Rs. 10,000 as compensation for break of studies, is attractive. But on deeper scrutiny it appears that it is a case of mistake of pen. The Tribunal as a matter of fact has awarded Rs. 10,000 towards the compensation for the grievous injuries received by the claimant. Looking to the tender age of the claimant and the length of medical treatment given to him, I find that the award of Rs. 18,000 is just and reasonable. Therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the cross-objection I find that it is not a fit case for further enhancement of the compensation. The learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent could not point out any relevant circumstance to further enhance the compensation amount. However, the Tribunal should have awarded interest to the compensation amount from the date of application to the date of actual payment. The Tribunal has failed to do so. Therefore, simple interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of petition to the date of actual payment of the compensation amount is awarded.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
12. The cross-objection is partly allowed. Simple interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of petition to the date of actual payment is also awarded.