Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 664 (MP)

Shashi Bai v. Om Prakash Goswami

2004-08-13

RAJEEV GUPTA, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2004
JUDGMENT Gupta, J. -- With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this appeal was finally heard. By this appeal, the appellants assail the award dated 29.8.2002, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindori, in M.A.C.C. No. 16/2000, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The appellants who are the unfortunate parents of 9 year old child Priyanka, had claimed compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- alleging that while they were asleep along with the said child in their Tea Stall on 21.2.2000, the vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-42/6892 driven by respondent No.2 Bachchulal rashly and negligently, barged into their tenement, resulting in instantaneous death of their daughter. At the relevant time, the respondent No.1 was the owner of the vehicle while the respondent NO.3 was its Insurance Company. The claim application was filed before the Tribunal at Dindori on the averment that the appellants were residing within the area of its jurisdiction. However, on the ground that the appellants had stated that they were at the time of deposition residing in Amarkantak within the jurisdiction of Shahdol district, the learned Member of the Tribunal held that the Tribunal at Dindori had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and dismissed the claim. It is on account of this order of dismissal that the present appeal has been filed before us. We have perused the statement of Shashi Bai (AW1), mother of the deceased and Subhash Kumar Sahu (AW 2), father of the deceased. From the averments made in the application supported by the certificate of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Karanjiya, it is clear that the claimants were ordinarily residents of Village Karanjiya and the father of the girl was having a tea-stall at Amarkantak. It was in this state of affairs that the father of the deceased appears to have made the statement that he was resident of Amarkantak. From the certificate, it appears that both were ordinarily residents of Village Karanjiya in District Dindori and, therefore, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the application in respect of the accident involving persons who were ordinarily residents of the district within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. From the certificate, it appears that both were ordinarily residents of Village Karanjiya in District Dindori and, therefore, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the application in respect of the accident involving persons who were ordinarily residents of the district within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Normally on finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction we would have remanded the matter to the Tribunal but since the matter is four years old and the learned Counsel have also expressed their inclination for decision with regard to the compensation in this appeal itself, we have heard the learned Counsel also on the question of quantum and other matters. From the evidence on record as projected by the appellants through the testimony of Shashi Bai (AW1) and Subhash Kumar Sahu (A W 2), it is clear that while all of them were asleep, in the early hours at about 5.00 a.m. in the morning, the bus entered the hotel resulting in instantaneous death of the child Priyanka. From the manner in which the bus entered the hotel after leaving the main road at a high speed, there is no manner of doubt that it was driven by the driver rashly and negligently and, therefore, the death of Pliyanka occurred on account of the rashness and negligence. From the pleadings on record, it is clear that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and, therefore, for any liability arising within the stipulations contained in the insurance cover, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation to the claimants. There is no dispute that Priyanka aged 9 years, has died on account of the said accident and on the basis of the evidence of Shashi Bai (A W 1) and Subhash Kumar Sahu (A W 2), there can be no manner of doubt that death was on account of rashness and negligence and on the basis of the pleadings undoubtedly all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for her death in the said accident. The question that survives for consideration is as to what should be the amount of compensation ? The appellants have claimed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-. However, though initially the learned counsel for the appellants was insisting on higher amount, there was more or les~, consensus on the sum of Rs. 75,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and we award a sum of Rs. The appellants have claimed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-. However, though initially the learned counsel for the appellants was insisting on higher amount, there was more or les~, consensus on the sum of Rs. 75,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and we award a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for the death of Priyanka. The amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application. The Insurance Company is granted two months' time to deposit the amount. There shall be no order as to costs of this appeal.