Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 492 (MP)

Sukuwa Dohar v. Ashok Kumar Niyogi

2001-07-12

ARUN MISHRA, BHAWANI SINGH

body2001
Judgment ( 1. ) BY this judgment, we propose to decide both the appeals mentioned above since they arise out of the same award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna, in Claim Case No. 16/96, dated March 15, 1997. ( 2. ) SOKHILAL (24), son of Sukuwa, was employed with Ashok Kumar as a labourer. It is further stated that he was employed with tractor No. CPA 6293. Accident took place on 26-3-1987 in which Sokhilal died when he came underneath the wheels of the tractor. The allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor, otherwise it would not have happened. The matter was reported to the police which registered Cr. Case under Section 304-A of the IPC. At the time of accident, deceased was the only son of the claimant. Wife of the deceased had left him and settled with some other person, leaving the claimant alone at home as a dependent on the deceased. The deceased was earning Rs. 15. 00 per day. Total compensation of Rs. 1,60,000. 00 has been claimed. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT No. 2 has denied the allegation that the deceased was working with him and he died in the accident as alleged. It is denied that the tractor was owned by him and was being plied by him on the date of accident. ( 4. ) RESPONDENT No. 4 has also denied that Sokhilal died in the tractor accident. It is also denied that the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently. This tractor had been sold to Ashok Kumar and was being used and controlled by him on the date of accident, therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation. ( 5. ) ON the basis of case set up by respective parties, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that Sokhilal died in the tractor accident. This tractor was under the control of Ashok Kumar, but allegation that it was being driven rashly and negligently was not proved. Consequently, under Section 19 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 has been awarded carrying interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 5-10-1987. ( 6. This tractor was under the control of Ashok Kumar, but allegation that it was being driven rashly and negligently was not proved. Consequently, under Section 19 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 has been awarded carrying interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 5-10-1987. ( 6. ) APPELLANT Sukuwa (M. A. No. 939/97) has prayed for modification of the impugned award, while appellant Ashok Kumar Niyogi (M. A. No. 404/97) has prayed for setting aside the impugned award. ( 7. ) SHRI S. A. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for Ashok Kumar, contends that there is no evidence to hold that the tractor was sold to him and was under his control at the time of accident. He submitted that the tractor was held and possessed by Girjaprasad, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. ( 8. ) SHRI Anil Khaskalam, learned counsel for appellant Sukuwa, submits that Ashok Kumar owned, possessed and controlled the tractor on the date of accident, the deceased was appointed with him and the accident took place when he was employed with the tractor. Therefore, Ashok Kumar is liable to pay the compensation. It is also submitted that the compensation deserves to be enhanced looking to the fact that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,00 per day and he was employed with the tractor at the time of accident. ( 9. ) WITH a view to examine the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, record of the case has been perused. We find from the written statement of Girjaprasad that he was the owner of the tractor and it was registered in his name. Although he has stated that he had sold it to Ashok Kumar and it was Ashok Kumar who was to pay the bank loan, therefore, it was under the control of Ashok Kumar, but this statement cannot be accepted. Fact remains that Girjaprasad was registered owner of the tractor on the date of accident and the registration had not been changed in the name of Ashok Kumar and the accident took place during this time. Ashok Kumar had denied having purchased the tractor from Girjaprasad. He has also denied execution of any agreement with respect to sale of the tractor. Ashok Kumar had denied having purchased the tractor from Girjaprasad. He has also denied execution of any agreement with respect to sale of the tractor. Therefore, it is not difficult to hold that on the date of accident, Girjaprasad was the registered owner of the tractor and not Ashok Kumar. Girjaprasad had not cared to enter the witness-box to prove his case, nor has he appeared in this Court. There is no evidence to point out that the tractor was insured with any Insurance Company. ( 10. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the conclusion drawn by the Claims Tribunal is unsustainable and is, therefore, rejected. ( 11. ) HAVING come to the conclusion aforesaid, we now turn to the question of determination of compensation in this case. Deceased was 24 years old at the time of accident. He was earning Rs. 15. 00 per day, Rs. 450. 00 per month and Rs. 5,400. 00 per annum. Making deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenditure, the dependency comes to Rs. 3,000. 00 per year. The appropriate multiplier in this case should be 13 looking to the age of the claimant. Thus counted, the compensation awardable in this case comes to Rs. 46,800. 00. The claimant shall also be entitled to Rs. 5,000. 00 towards loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,000. 00 towards funeral expenses, taking the amount of compensation to Rs. 53,300. 00. The amount of compensation shall be paid by Girjaprasad within a period of three months along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of application till payment. ( 12. ) ACCORDINGLY M. A. No. 939/97 (Sukuwa v. Ashok Kumar Niyogi and Ors.) is allowed and compensation is enhanced and liability is fixed on Girjaprasad. M. A. No. 404/97 (Ashok Kumar Niyogi v. Sukuwa Dohar and Ors.) is allowed to the extent that liability to pay the compensation shall be of Girjaprasad instead of Ashok Kumar. ( 13. ) THE amount deposited by Ashok Kumar in this case on 10-2-2000 before the Claims Tribunal shall be refunded to him. Costs on parties.