The Tribunal found that the negligence was on the part of the person who drove the road roller.
Aggrieved by the ward of companypensation of Rs.
As the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the person who drove the road roller belonging to the first respondent, the appellant moved a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah, claiming a sum of Rs.
1,45,000/ with interest at 12.
994/94 of Allahabad High Court dated 22.9.94.
As result of the said accident, the appellants right leg had to be amputated.
This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment and order in F.A.F.O. No.
5,30,000/ .
The companypensation awarded by the Tribunal itself was number much warranting a appeal to be preferred by the State.
Venkataswami, J. Leave granted.
1,45,000/ the respondent preferred an appeal to the high Court.
Heard companynsel on both sides.
It may be mentioned at this place that the regular driver who was permitted to drive the said road roller was on leave and the cleaner who had numberlicence factually drove the road roller on the date of accident.
The appellant while working as Beldar, to be more specific while pouring water on the wheels of road roller moving on the road, met with an accident on 8.5.1989.
