Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 307 (MP)

Rajesh Kumar v. Kunwar Singh

2000-03-27

V.K.AGARWAL

body2000
ORDER V.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 13.9.1996, in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 35/91, by Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Multai, Betul, whereby an award of Rs. 46,918/- has been granted in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1. 2. It is now not in dispute that the claimant/respondent No. 1 is an Advocate. He was driving his motorcycle No. BTA 7332 from Amla to Multal, his motorcycle was dashed by another motorcycle No. ADG 4195, driven by respondent No. 2 Shiv Shankar. 3. The claimant/appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), claiming compensation on account of the said accident. He averred that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by respondent No. 2. It was also averred that the said motorcycle was owned by the appellant. He suffered fractures and had to undergo treatment for about three months, resulting in loss of earning, mental pain and sufferings and loss of future prospects. The respondent No. 2 did not appear to contest the said application. The appellant filed his reply. In his reply, he did not specifically deny that he is not the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. ADG 4195. 4. Learned Tribunal after assessment of material and evidence on record concluded that the accident occurred on account of respondent No. 2 Shiv Shankar Thakur driving motorcycle ADG 4195 rashly and negligently. It was also held that the appellant is the owner of the said vehicle. It was further held that the respondent No. 1/claimant suffered fracture in his left leg. He had to incur expenditure of Rs. 6,918/- in his treatment. He suffered loss of earning of Rs. 15,000/-, towards non-pecuniary damages for mental and physical pain Rs. 25,000/- were awarded. Thus a total award of Rs. 46,918/- was granted in favour of claimant/respondent No. 1. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle and that the respondent No. 1/claimant failed to prove the above fact. Hence, liability to pay the amount of award could not have been fastened on the appellant. 46,918/- was granted in favour of claimant/respondent No. 1. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle and that the respondent No. 1/claimant failed to prove the above fact. Hence, liability to pay the amount of award could not have been fastened on the appellant. It was further contended that the amount of award is excessive, inasmuch as the claimant/respondent No. 1 did not suffer any permanent disablement, and that the amount of non-pecuniary damages as assessed and granted by the impugned award, is excessive. 6. As noticed earlier, the appellant did not specifically deny the allegation of the respondent No. 1-claimant that the offending vehicle ADG 4195 was owned by him. His denial to the specific averments of the claimant in para 8 of his application under Section 166 of the 'Act' is rather evasive and vague, inasmuch as he has stated in his reply that the above allegations of the claimant/respondent No. 1 were without basis. He did not aver that the motorcycle ADG 4195 did not belong to him. In his statement appellant Brajesh Kumar (NAW/1) in para 3 has admitted that he has obtained the said motorcycle on 'Supratnama' by filing an application to the effect that the motorcycle belonged to him. He further states that he did not care to verify as to whom the said motorcycle belonged. 7. Obviously in view of the above statement it is clear that the appellant has persisted in his evasion regarding the ownership of the offending motorcycle. The registration certificate of the motorcycle was not got produced by him, nor he examined any official of the Regional Transport Officer in support of his contention that the offending vehicle did not belong to him. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the evidence and testimony of the claimant/respondent No. 1 that the offending vehicle was in the ownership of the appellant Brajesh Kumar. It is also clear from the statement of claimant/respondent No. 1 that the accident occurred on accident of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle belonging to the appellant by its driver Shiv Shankar-the respondent No. 2 herein, as is the finding of the learned Tribunal. Obviously, therefore, the appellant, owner of the offending vehicle ADG 4195 and the driver are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1. Obviously, therefore, the appellant, owner of the offending vehicle ADG 4195 and the driver are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1. 8. So far as quantum of damages is concerned, since the claimant/respondent No. 1 has proved the medical expenditure which he spent to the extent of Rs. 6,918/-, the same was rightly allowed in his favour by the Tribunal. The loss of earning for the period of treatment assessed at Rs. 15,000/- which extended to a period of three months, as stated by the claimant/respondent No. 1, also does not seem to be excessive. However, so far as non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 25,000/- for mental and physical pain is concerned, it seems to be a little on the higher side and deserves to be modified to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of accident, injuries, duration of treatment and also in view of the fact that the claimant did not suffer any permanent disablement. Accordingly, the award deserves to be reduced to Rs. 41,918/-. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the award of Rs. 46,918/- (Rupees forty-six thousand nine hundred and eighteen) is modified and the amount is reduced to Rs. 41,918/- (Rupees forty-one thousand nine hundred and eighteen) with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Cost of this appeal shall be borne by both the parties.