Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 587 (MP)

Mohanlal Gupta v. State of M. P.

2001-08-09

A.K.MISHRA, BHAWANI SINGH

body2001
JUDGMENT Singh, C.J. (Oral) -- We propose to dispose of these two appeals (M.A. No. 242 of 1989 - Dr. Mohanlal Gupta v. State of M.P. and others and M.A. No. 352 of 1989 - Israr Mohammad Khan v. Dr. Mohanlal Gupta and another) by this order since they arise out of the same accident and between the same parties. They are directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhatarpur, in Claim Case No. 15 of 1986 dated April 5, 1989. Accident took place on 1.12.1985, when Jeep No. CPZ 2571 driven rashly and negligently by driver Israr Mohd. Khan and owned by State of M.P. dashed against truck which was ahead of it. The claimant was going in this vehicle for attending duty. As a result of this accident, he· sustained a number of injuries on his person. He was 48 years old at that time, earning Rs. 3,160/- per month. During treatment, he had to take special diet spending Rs. 5,000/-. He had to engage a person to look after him on which he had to spend a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Due to the injuries, he suffered permanent disability. He cannot move about. He is deprived of using cycle. After retirement, he would not be in a position to use vehicle. He underwent great pain and suffering due to these injuries. Compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been claimed by him from the State and its driver. Respondents-non-claimants have filed separate statement in this case. It is stated that the Jeep was being driven carefully. It wanted to ovel1ake the truck moving ahead of it. When the truck stopped all of a sudden, the jeep struck against it due to the fault of that truck driver whose truck number could not be noted and he went away. As such, it is a 'hit and run' case. The claimant is not entitled to claim compensation from respondents nor he has suffered permanent disability. He is capable to do normal work. Claims Tribunal has found that the jeep was not being driven rashly and negligently, therefore, the claimant was not entitled to compensation. However, compensation of Rs. 7,500/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for injuries sustained by the claimant, from the State under 'no fault liability'. He is capable to do normal work. Claims Tribunal has found that the jeep was not being driven rashly and negligently, therefore, the claimant was not entitled to compensation. However, compensation of Rs. 7,500/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for injuries sustained by the claimant, from the State under 'no fault liability'. The award, as to inadequacy of compensation and the finding of the Tribunal that Jeep CPZ 2571 was not being driven rashly and negligently, therefore, claimant is not entitled for compensation, has been challenged through these appeals. Claimant alleges that compensation should be enhanced and finding on Issues 1 and 2 reversed. Driver Israr Mohd. Khan has filed appeal and his claim is that the truck driver was also responsible for the accident, therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation. After going through the records of the case and submissions raised by learned counsel for parties, we are of the opinion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep No. CPZ 2571 by driver Israr Mohd. Khan. Case of driver of jeep is that the jeep was being driven behind the truck and when the truck stopped all of a sudden, the jeep dashed against it from behind. What is intended to be conveyed is that the driver of the truck should not have stopped the truck all of a sudden. This submission is completely unsustainable and illogical. Jeep driver was asking for side by overtaking the truck in front of it. For giving the side, there were two ways, first being to stop the vehicle and the other to take it to the extreme side of the road to give passage to the jeep to move on. Jeep driver should have been at a reasonable distance from the truck in order to avoid this kind of accident. Stopping of truck on the request of the jeep driver was a normal thing and could be anticipated by the jeep driver. The jeep driver did not take care of it nor drove the jeep at a reasonable distance from the truck by understanding that the truck driver could stop the truck and he could apply the brake. The jeep was not at a reasonable distance to avoid the jeep hitting the truck. The jeep driver did not take care of it nor drove the jeep at a reasonable distance from the truck by understanding that the truck driver could stop the truck and he could apply the brake. The jeep was not at a reasonable distance to avoid the jeep hitting the truck. It means he did not see that the driver had halted the truck and he did not apply brakes to stop the jeep. That is why the jeep hit the truck, therefore, negligence on the part of the jeep driver is writ large in the facts and circumstances of this case. Finding of the Claims Tribunal to the contrary is unsustainable and therefore reversed. Having come to the conclusion aforesaid, it is not difficult to hold that the claimant is entitled to compensation for the injuries he suffered while going to the place of his duty by this jeep, owned by the State. The question is what compensation he is entitled to. The claimant has stated that in this accident, he suffered injuries to his head, face, neck, dislocation of knees, fracture of fibula one and ligament injuries. He had to remain out of duties for 27 days and had to lie on bed in the house, three months. Due to this accident, he has suffered disability in his right foot, which can bend only to 60 degree and cannot be placed on the floor conveniently. The disability in left foot is 10% and in right foot it is 15%. He has suffered in matrimonial relationship and later in private practice after superannuation as he cannot use cycle to see his patients. In this accident, he had to spend on the special diet, engagement of attendant, incurring expenditure of Rs. 5,000/- on each of these two items. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by claimant and evidence in support thereof, we are clearly of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded just compensation in this case, may be because the case has been taken to be 'hit and run' case. Having come to the conclusion that it is a case of negligence on the part of driver of the jeep, compensation has to be assessed in that background. In the totality of circumstances, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that just compensation in this case should be Rs. 50,000.00 (rupees fifty thousand). Having come to the conclusion that it is a case of negligence on the part of driver of the jeep, compensation has to be assessed in that background. In the totality of circumstances, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that just compensation in this case should be Rs. 50,000.00 (rupees fifty thousand). In 1986, interest was not 12% per annum. Now, the rate of interest has also been decreased. Of course, for some time, the rate of interest was between 8% to 10%. Consequently, the Misc. Appeal No. 242 of 1989is allowed. Amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 50,000.00 (rupees fifty thousand). The compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of application till payment. The respondent State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to pay the compensation within a period of three months. Misc. Appeal No. 352 of 1989 is dismissed. Cost on parties.