Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 826 (MP)

Anil Kumar v. Rajkumar

1996-09-17

A.S.TRIPATHI

body1996
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 15.1.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Shivpuri, making an award in favour of the appellant only to the extent of Rs. 15,500/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.7.1994, petitioner/appellant and his two companions were talking on a road near Chintamani temple in the town of Shivpuri. One Maruti Van No: MP 08/0765 was being driven by Rajaram, respondent No, 2 rashly and negligently had dashed against the appellant and his two companions causing injuries. The appellant had a scooter also, which was damaged on the road. The appellant had received grievous injuries and, there was permanent disablement of his leg. A petition for a claim of Rs. 3,96,200/was filed. 3. The non-petitioners/respondents contested the claim on the grounds that the driver of the Maruti van was not negligent. The appellant and his two companions were riding on a scooter and they themselves dashed against the standing Maruti van and were not entitled to any compensation. 4. After framing necessary issues, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the Maruti van. Grievous injury was caused to the appellant. He had suffered mental agony and expenses on medicines etc. Rs. 31,000/- were assessed to be the proper compensation's amount, on the basis that Rs. 13,000/- were spent on medicines etc. Rs. 1000/- for keeping a servant, Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 12,000/- for permanent disablement. But the Tribunal found that there was also a contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and the claim was reduced to half. In this way, Rs. 15,500/- were awarded as compensation to the appellant. 5. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant pointed out that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and the amount of compensation could not be reduced to half. 6. The tribunal simply assumed the poillt of contributory negligence on the ground that injury was caused to all the three persons only on the right side. On this basis, the tribunal assessed that this could be caused only when the appellant could dash against the Maruti van, when they were also riding on the scooter. 7. 6. The tribunal simply assumed the poillt of contributory negligence on the ground that injury was caused to all the three persons only on the right side. On this basis, the tribunal assessed that this could be caused only when the appellant could dash against the Maruti van, when they were also riding on the scooter. 7. I have examined this point and perused the evidence on record, and it appears that merely because injuries were caused on the right side, the same could not be said to be a factor for contributory negligence. The nature of injuries caused could not be sustained merely by dashing against a standing maruti van. Grievous injury was caused. This could be only when Maruti van was in running condition. 8. The case taken by the respondents was that the Maruti van was standing, and the appellant and his two companions themselves had dashed with their scooter. This theory is totally falsified in view of the statement of the appellant, his witnesses, nature of injuries caused and also in view of the-fact that grievous injury was caused to the appellant causing permanent disablement which could not be caused by dashing against a standing Maruti van. As such, the assumption of the trial Court/Tribunal on the point of contributory negligence is not borne out from the record and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal had recorded a finding in para 16 of its judgment that both the vehicles were responsible for this accident. In this way, contributory negligence was presumed. There could not be any presumption for contributory negligence; it has to be proved from the evidence and circumstances of the case. 9. There is no evidence, worth accepting that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and his companions. On the other hand, nature and place of injuries suggest that the Maruti Van was being driven at a high speed near a temple on a byepass road, near cross-road, where vehicle must be driven very slowly. It was a case of rash and negligent driving. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on the point of contributory negligence, is not at all justified in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the appellant had no licence for driving of the scooter, and on' that ground, claim could not be awarded. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on the point of contributory negligence, is not at all justified in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the appellant had no licence for driving of the scooter, and on' that ground, claim could not be awarded. But the counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case of State of U.P. v. Vidyawati Singh, 1994 (2) T AC 443 wherein it was held that merely not having a driving licence for scooter does not disentitle the claimant to claim compensation, as nothing suggests that the appellant did not know driving of the scooter. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the case of Kashiram Yadav v. Oriental Fire & Gen. Insurance Co., AIR 1989 SC 2002 ,' wherein it was held that when the vehicle was driven by a person having no licence for driving, Insurance Company could not be held liable. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant placed reliance on the cases of NKV Bras Pvt. Ltd. V. M. Karumai Ammal, AIR 1980 SC 1354 , and Pushpabai v. Ramjit G & P Co. AIR 1977 SC 1735 , wherein it was held that the tribunal was to assess the evidence in view of the facts and circumstances of each case. When an accident speaks for itself, and where there was sufficient proof that negligence was on the part of other side, there could be no doubt in granting an award to the claimant. It was sufficient to show that the accident had taken place due to some other cause, than own negligence of the claimant. 13. In this case, it is clear that the negligence of the driver of the Maruti van was there otherwise such nature of injuries could not have been caused. Further the statement of the driver is on record, certified copy of which is filed, which shows that he was having a driving licence at the time of the accident. The seizure of the driving licence was also proved from the first information report and the seizure memo proved on record as Ex. P/10 and Ex. P/12. 14. In this view of the matter, the contention of the Insurance Company for no liability is not tenable. 15. The seizure of the driving licence was also proved from the first information report and the seizure memo proved on record as Ex. P/10 and Ex. P/12. 14. In this view of the matter, the contention of the Insurance Company for no liability is not tenable. 15. In view of the findings recorded above, I find that the assessment of compensation to the extent of Rs. 31,000/-, was proper by the tribunal, but reducing the same to half on the basis of the contributory negligence is not justified. 16. This appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation awarded is enhanced to Rs. 31,000/- (Rs. thirtyone thousand only), with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition, i.e. 11th of November, 1994 till the date of its realisation, with costs throughout. 17. The judgment and award of the tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above.