Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 244 (PAT)

Neeam Jha v. Manju Devi

2003-02-28

P.K.DEB

body2003
Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the above-named appellant, who happens to be owner of the alleged offending vehicle bearing No. BR 30-P 3697 in the name and style Mukund Coach, against the judgment and award passed by the 3rd Addl. District Judge, M.A.C.T. in Claim Case No. 2 of 1997 (4 of 1999) granting compensation to the claimants-respondents to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 2. Claimants are the parents of Dablu who was a boy of 10/11 years met with an accident on 6.12.1996 by bus bearing No. BR 30-P 3697. According to the claimants, the bus was being driven negligently in a rash and high speed as a result of which accident occurred and the deceased died almost instantaneously. The bus in accident was running having route permit under RTA, but very peculiarly it had no insurance which was a must for running a bus on the road. Be it what it may the claim case was contested from the side of the appellant by filing written statement therein the accident occurred due to the bus in question has been denied. Nowhere it has been stated in the written statement that the bus was not being driven on the road where the alleged accident had taken place on the date of accident, but it was an afterthought during the course of adjudication. By producing route permit, etc., the appellant wanted to show that the road in question did not fall within the route permit of the offending bus. 3. For and on behalf of the claimants nine witnesses have been examined and several witnesses have been examined for the purpose of denial from the side of the appellant in the court below. Learned Tribunal considered the evidence of individual witnesses of both sides and discussed them elaborately and came to the finding that the bus in question was the offending bus and, as such held the owner of the bus, i.e., appellant-respondent liable for paying compensation to claimants and the compensation was assessed to Rs. 1,00,000 as already stated above. 4. Mr. Learned Tribunal considered the evidence of individual witnesses of both sides and discussed them elaborately and came to the finding that the bus in question was the offending bus and, as such held the owner of the bus, i.e., appellant-respondent liable for paying compensation to claimants and the compensation was assessed to Rs. 1,00,000 as already stated above. 4. Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf appellant, has argued strenuously that the involvement of the bus in question becomes questionable when it appears that soon after the accident when the F.I.R. was filed it was mentioned by the father of the deceased that he was not knowing the number of the bus but mentioned that it was a Mukund Coach bus. Admittedly, the father of the deceased was not direct eyewitness to the occurrence. There were five other eyewitnesses to the occurrence who had specifically mentioned about the offending bus and its particularities. Only because the number of the bus was missing from the F.I.R. then it cannot be said that the bus was not involved in the accident and that mentioning of the number of the bus in the claim case was only an afterthought. As per the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, when an accident occurs and the same is reported to the police then it becomes the duty of the police to inform the informant or the relatives of the deceased about the number of the bus, its insurer, etc., in that way even though the number of the bus was missing in the F.I.R. its mention in the claim case cannot be construed to be an afterthought and when a large number of eyewitnesses have stated about the involvement of the bus in question in the accident directly and the cross-examination could not dislodge those five witnesses AW 1 to AW 5 then it was rightly held that the factum of the accident occurred by the offending bus has been established. 5. Regarding the defence case of non-involvement was only on conjectures and surmises. There is no specific plea in the written statement but afterwards by showing the route permit the appellant wanted to show that there was no occasion of the bus in question to travel by that route. This plea and position has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal on considering the same to be enough to be an afterthought. There is no specific plea in the written statement but afterwards by showing the route permit the appellant wanted to show that there was no occasion of the bus in question to travel by that route. This plea and position has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal on considering the same to be enough to be an afterthought. In that way, I do not find that the learned Tribunal had committed any error in holding the appellant-respondent liable for paying the compensation to the claimants. 6. Regarding quantum of compensation a feeble argument has been placed by Mr. Agrawal that compensation awarded is on the higher side as in some decisions of this court it is held that for death of a child in an accident Rs. 50,000 would be a proper quantum of compensation. Mr. Mazumdar appearing for and on behalf of claimants-respondents has submitted a number of decisions as in Nitin Walia V/s. Union of India, 2001 ACJ 462 (Delhi); Kader Kunju V/s. Maheswaran Pada Nair, 2000 ACJ 524 (SC); Nagesha V/s. M.S. Krishna, 1998 ACJ 467 (SC) and Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF, 1998 ACJ 859 (SC), that there cannot be any hard and fast rule or a straitjacket for the purpose of computing assessing the quantum of compensation and that depends upon the position and circumstances in each individual case. In those reported cases even compensation more than Rs. 1,00,000 had been granted. For a child or a minor boy who had no income of his own, there is no scope of use of multiplier or formula as contemplated under Motor Vehicle Act or Rules thereof as per schedule of assessment/determination of compensation. Some sort of intuition, conjectures and surmises must be there and in considering such assessment and determination, the social status and financial position of the family are of vital importance. In the present case, it appears that the father of the deceased is practically a labourer and according to his deposition his family comes from a very lower strata of society and practically his family stands on the poverty line but still then he was educating his son with a very hope of a bright future of his son and it has also been stated that his son was doing good in his academic career. All these matters have been considered by the learned Tribunal in assessing the quantum of compensation. 7. All these matters have been considered by the learned Tribunal in assessing the quantum of compensation. 7. In that way, I do not find anything to interfere in the assessment of compensation as held by the learned Tribunal. This appeal is thus dismissed having no force but no order as to costs.