Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 415 (JHR)

BHUWANESHWAR SAHU v. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

2002-03-22

H.S.PRASAD, M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
Judgment : EQBAL AND PRASAD, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is dated 14. 5. 1991 passed by 1st Additional directed against the judgment and award Distt. Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 65 of 1987 whereby he has dismissed the claim application holding that the claimant failed to prove rash and negligent driving of the dumper bearing No. BHM 2965 which dashed against the motor cycle which was involved in the accident. ( 2 ) IT appears that son of the claimant, namely, Deepak Kumar Verma along with his friend Ashish Ranjan were going to hazaribagh from Ramgarh on a motor cycle. On the way near village Hatiyari, dumper came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which, both the occupants of the motor cycle died. It is also stated that the dumper dragged the motor cycle and the occupants for about 30 ft. ( 3 ) TWO claim cases were filed, one by the dependant of Ashish Ranjan being claim Case No. 62 of 1987 and another by the dependants of Deepak Kumar Verma, which is the instant case. It further appears that so far Claim Case No. 62 of 1987 is concerned, parties have compromised before the Lok Adalat held at Hazaribagh and a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 has been paid to the claimants of that case by way of compensation. Since the instant claim case was disposed of, same could not be settled before the Lok Adalat. ( 4 ) WE have perused the judgment of the tribunal and the finding recorded on the issue of rash and negligent driving. The tribunal has held that no reliable evidence has been brought by the claimants to prove that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the dumper. The case of the claimant is that while the deceased was going on motor cycle, the dumper came from the opposite direction and hit the motor cycle and dragged it along with the occupants for about 30 ft. ( 5 ) IN our view, having regard to the undisputed statements the Tribunal ought to have applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. In other words, sometimes the accident itself proves the negligence. The fact that the dumper hit the motor cycle and dragged it along with the occupants to a distance of 30 ft. ( 5 ) IN our view, having regard to the undisputed statements the Tribunal ought to have applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. In other words, sometimes the accident itself proves the negligence. The fact that the dumper hit the motor cycle and dragged it along with the occupants to a distance of 30 ft. is by itself, sufficient to infer rashness and negligence on the part of driver in driving the dumper. We, therefore, hold that the accident was caused by the driver of the dumper and as such the claimants are entitled to compensation. ( 6 ) SO far quantum of compensation is concerned, Mr. Rai, the learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice that in another case being Claim Case No. 62 of 1987 on the same set of facts, the insurance company has paid Rs. 1,40,000. Learned counsel submitted that the claimants of the instant case are also entitled to get at least the aforesaid amount by way of compensation. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel. ( 7 ) WE, therefore, allow this appeal set aside the judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal and direct the respondents insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 by way of compensation together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of the award, i. e. , from 14. 5. 1991. ( 8 ) NEEDLESS to say that the interim compensation, if any, already paid by the insurance company to the claimants, shall be deducted out of the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs. 1,40,000. It is expected that the insurance company shall satisfy the award within a period of two months from today. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .