Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1132 (MP)

M. P. S. R. T. C. , Bhopal v. Swarnlata Saxena

2000-10-13

BHAWANI SINGH, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2000
BHAWANI SINGH, J. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Bhopal dated 13.7.1995. Legal heirs of deceased G.P Saxena (49) filed claim petition against the respondents in the claim petition, alleging that the accident took place on 4.2.1990 at 11.40 a.m. when the deceased was going from T.T. Nagar Bazar towards Lily Cinema on his scooter No. CCIC 1512, Bus No. CPM 6572 owned by MPSRTC driven by Tadbeer Mohammad dashed against his scooter near Jahangirabad Police Petrol Pump. The deceased sustained injuries as a result of which he died in the hospital on 7.2.90. Allegation is that the accident took place clue to rash and negligent driving on the part of bus driver otherwise it would not have taken place. A case under section 304A, Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver. Deceased was 49 year old at the time of accident. He was working as Senior Artisan in BHEL at Bhopal drawing Rs. 3,501/- per month. Allegations have been denied by the respondents in the claim petition and it is stated that the deceased did not possess valid driving licence nor the scooter was insured. Accident was not caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus. The deceased was responsible for the same. These defences have not been accepted by the Tribunal. Finding recorded is that the deceased died in the said accident when his scooter was hit by the bus. The allegation that the scooter was being driven negligently and the scootcrist lost balance thereof has not been proved. Consequently, total compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- has been awarded on various counts carrying interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident till its payment. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Claims Tribunal has not analysed the evidence properly resulting in erroneous finding as to involvement of the bus of the appellant in accident. As a matter of fact the deceased was negligent in driving the scooter. He hit a cycle, thereafter got involved with the bus. Consequently, no compensation should have been awarded. It is also contended that principle of res ipsa locutor is not applicable in this case, hence it is not proved that bus was responsible for committing the accident. Shri Mantosh Mishra, counsel for the claimants contended that case of the appellant has been rejected by the Tribunal. Consequently, no compensation should have been awarded. It is also contended that principle of res ipsa locutor is not applicable in this case, hence it is not proved that bus was responsible for committing the accident. Shri Mantosh Mishra, counsel for the claimants contended that case of the appellant has been rejected by the Tribunal. This being a finding of fact, cannot be disturbed by this Court unless it is completely unsustainable on evidence in the case. The facts disclose involvement of the bus in the accident which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. The Tribunal has awarded less compensation in this case. Proper multiplier of 13 has not been used. Therefore, already less compensation has been awarded. We have considered the matter with the assistance of the counsel for the parties and perused the material available before us. The evidence of the appellant has been rejected by the Claims Tribunal rightly because facts stated during examination in the Court do not find mention in the written statement. Driver had admittedly taken the vehicle at the place of accident. There is no dispute about it but how it has happened there may be some variation but to cover this situation the Claims Tribunal has applied principle of res ipsa locutor in this case, as in the alternative although it has given clear finding as to the involvement of the bus in the accident. Therefore, finding cannot be considered to be perverse or grossly unreasonable calling for interference in this appeal. Of course, there could be some enhancement in award of compensation in case of multiplier of 13 but no appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award. Therefore, the matter is left open. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Costs on the parties. Compensation amount be paid within two months or else will carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till its payment.