Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 666 (MP)

Hanumandas v. Tersi Bai

1995-08-24

S.B.SAKRIKAR

body1995
JUDGMENT S.B. Sakrikar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 24.1.1990 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa in Claim Case No. 69/1987 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation of the amount in favour of the respondent and against the appellants. 2. The facts of the case are that on 6.4.1987 at about 7.00 to 8.00 a.m., appellant No. 1 Hanumandas was going to Rewa from Gudh-Rewa road on the Motor-Cycle No. CPA-4756, which was registered in the name of appellant No. 2 Tejbali Chourasia. Near village Khadda, appellant Hanumandas gave a dash to claimant/respondent Tersi Bai, when she was going towards village Khadda from the left side of the road, which resulted in the serious injury to the right leg of said Tersi Bai. Because of the aforesaid accident, tibia and fibula bone of the right leg of claimant Tersi Bai got fractured and after the treatment there was 30 to 40% permanent disability found in the right leg of Tersi Bai. Tersi Bai filed a claim petition for award of the compensation for the injuries caused to her in the alleged accident before the Claims Tribunal, Rewa. The claim petition was resisted by the appellants mainly on the ground that appellant Hanumandas did not give a dash to Tersi Bai on the date of the incident by motor cycle No. CPA-4756. He did not know the driving of motor-cycle and he was not responsible for the alleged accident. The learned Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence recorded in the case, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved by this award, the present appellants have filed this appeal. 3. In the appeal memo and during the course of arguments, the main contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that from the evidence on record, it is not proved that the alleged accident occurred as a result of the dash given by Hanumandas caused due to the rash and negligent driving of motor-cycle No. CPA-4756. 4. 3. In the appeal memo and during the course of arguments, the main contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that from the evidence on record, it is not proved that the alleged accident occurred as a result of the dash given by Hanumandas caused due to the rash and negligent driving of motor-cycle No. CPA-4756. 4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellants/non-applicants, it is specifically denied that on the date of the incident appellant No. 1 Hanumandas was driving Motor-Cycle No. CPA-4756 from village Kjajuha to Rewa and gave a dash to Respondent Tersi Bai resulting in the serious injuries to her right leg. The appellants specifically stated that on the date of the incident, Hanumandas was in Rewa and appearing in the High School Examination, which was scheduled between 7.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. It was also alleged that on the date of the incident, the motor-cycle was not in the running condition and it was given to mechanic Anwar Ali (D.W. 2) for repairs. 5. Respondent/applicant in support of her claim petition, examined herself and witness Ramprabhav (A.W. 2) and Dr. Vijay Kumar Tiwari (A.W. 3) whereas, the non-applicants have examined themselves and mechanic Anwar Ali (D.W.2) Applicant Tersi Bai in her statement has stated that on the date of the incident at 7.00 a.m., she was going for attending to her work at Ramphal's house. She was treading by the side of Gudh-Rewa road, when Hanumandas, S/o Suryabali came on a motor-cycle and gave a dash on her right leg due to which she fell down and became unconscious. According to Tersi Bai, the accident was witnessed by Ramprabhav (A.W. 2) and 2-3 other persons. Applicant's witness Ramprabhav (A.W. 2) corroborated the statement of claimant Tersi Bai and stated that at the time of the incident, he noticed the number of the motor-cycle, which was driven by Hanumandas. The number of the motor-cycle was CPA-4756. He also stated in his statement that after the accident, he hired one rickshaw and came to Civil Line Police Station alongwith injured Tersi Bai. He lodged the F.I.R. of the incident at P.S. Civil Lines. 6. On behalf of the claimant, copy of the F.I.R. was filed as Ex.A/1 and also copy of the seizure of motor-cycle No. CPA: 4756 as Ex. A/5. 7. He lodged the F.I.R. of the incident at P.S. Civil Lines. 6. On behalf of the claimant, copy of the F.I.R. was filed as Ex.A/1 and also copy of the seizure of motor-cycle No. CPA: 4756 as Ex. A/5. 7. In the reply to the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant, non-applicant Tejbali Chourasiya (D.W. 1) in his statement has said that on the date of the incident, his nephew Hanumandas was not driving his motor-cycle No. CPA-4756. On the date of the accident, his mo tor-cycle was given for repairs to the mechanic at Rewa. The motor-cycle was returned to him by the mechanic on 8.4.1987. Material contradictions are found in the statement of Tejbali Chourasiya and non-applicants' witness mechanic Anwar Ali (A.W. 2). In my opinion, the learned Tribunal, after discussing the evidence of Tejbali Chourasiya and Anwar Ali, has rightly held that from their statements, it cannot be considered that on the date of the incident, motor-cycle No. CPA-4756 was with mechanic Anwar Ali at Rewa, which was given to him for repairs. 8. The other evidence adduced on behalf of the non-applicants is that on the date of the incident, Hanumandas was at Rewa where he was appearing in the Board Examinatin of Xth Class between 7.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. From the statement of Hanumandas (D.W. 3) and from the copy of the time-table of High School Examination (Ex. N.A./2) and the mark-sheet (Ex. N.A./3), this fact is proved that Hanumandas did appear in the High School Examination at Rewa between 7.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. on the date of the incident, but, as per statement of claimant Tersi Bai, the alleged incident occurred at about 7.00 in the morning, the place of the incident is about 20 kms. from Rewa. So, in view of the time of the accident, it is possible for Hanumandas to reach Rewa after committing the accident and appearing in the examination at 7.30 a.m. at Rewa. The learned Tribunal was right in holding that because Hanumandas wanted to reach Rewa for attending the examination at 7.30 a.m., he was driving his motor-cycle rashly, which resulted in the alleged accident. The learned Tribunal was right in holding that because Hanumandas wanted to reach Rewa for attending the examination at 7.30 a.m., he was driving his motor-cycle rashly, which resulted in the alleged accident. From the evidence on record, I do not find that any error is committed by the learned Tribunal in recording the finding of issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent applicant and, therefore, no interference is necessary in the findings of the Tribunal that the alleged accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of motor-cycle No. CPA-4756, which was driven by appellant-Hanumandas. 9. The next contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that looking to the injury caused to the claimant Tersi Bai, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. From the statement of Tersi Bai and witness Ramprabha v. (A.W. 2) and Dr. Vijay Kumar Tiwari (A.W. 3), it is amply proved that in the alleged accident Tersi Bai sustained a grievous injury in her right ankle joint resulting in the fracture of tibia and fibula bones. From the statement of Dr. Vijay Kumar Tiwari, it is proved that because of the mal-union in the fractured bone, Tersi Bai was feeling difficulty in walking. The said doctor has specifically stated that because of the mal-union in the tibia-fibula bones, she cannot work properly and unable to do heavy work. The doctor has further specifically said that due to the mal-union in the tibia-fabula bones, her working capacity has been reduced to 30% to 40%. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any reason to hold that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- compensation under the head--loss of income because of reduction in the working capacity; Rs. 2,000/- wereawarded for the loss of the income during the period of treatment during which she could not work; Rs. 2,000/- was awarded for the pain and suffering and Rs. 1,000/- were awarded for the expenses of the treatment; in all Rs. 15,000.00 compensation was awarded by the learned Trinbunal. I consider that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as aforesaid, isjust and proper looking to the nature of the injury and also in the facts and circumstances of the case. No interference is necessary the quantum of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 10. 15,000.00 compensation was awarded by the learned Trinbunal. I consider that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as aforesaid, isjust and proper looking to the nature of the injury and also in the facts and circumstances of the case. No interference is necessary the quantum of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 10. As a result of the foregoing discussion, the appeal has no merits. The award passed by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and proper. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the award passed by the learned Tribunal is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.