Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1184 (MP)

Shameem Begum v. M. P. State Transport Nigam

2005-11-22

A.K.MISHRA, S.S.DWIVEDI

body2005
ORDER Dwivedi, J. -- 1. The appellant-claimants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act for brevity). Feeling aggrieved by an award dated 6.12.1995 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul, in Motor Claim Case No. 22/92 whereby the Claims Tribunal had rejected the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 29.7.1991 deceased Mirza Liyaqat Beg who was aged about 30 years was travelling in State Transport Bus No. MKW 7960 which was driven by driver Ratan Singh belonging to M.P. State Transport Corporation. This bus was going to Nagpur from Betul. When this bus reached at the relevant time on the bridge of the Machna river near village Pathoapura at that time the bus floated in the river due to the fast speed of flood water on the bridge and turn turtle in the river. The driver of the bus Ratan Singh and deceased Liyaqat Mirza both were floated in the river and their dead bodies could not be traced out from the river. Deceased Liyaqat Mirza Beg was working as a Physical Training Instructor in Higher Secondary School at Shahpur District Betul. His monthly salary was about Rs. 2,552/- from which he was maintaining his wife and minor sons. On these allegations the appellants-claimants had filed the claims petition claiming compensation amount of Rs. 6,58,000/- from the respondent. This claim petition has been filed before the Claims Tribunal at Betul. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing on merits the Learned Claims Tribunal has arrived at conclusion that it is not proved that this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Therefore, rejected the claim petition vide impugned award dated 6.12.1995. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award the appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. None present for the respondent before this Court after due notice of this appeal. 4. Arguments heard, record perused. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Shri J.A. Shah for the appellant that the Learned Claims Tribunal has erred in appreciation of the evidence on record. The finding of the Claims Tribunal is erroneous that this had not been proved that this accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Shri J.A. Shah for the appellant that the Learned Claims Tribunal has erred in appreciation of the evidence on record. The finding of the Claims Tribunal is erroneous that this had not been proved that this accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned award and also prayed that the just and reasonable compensation amount would be awarded in favour of the appellants. 6. The first point for consideration before us is that as to whether this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by bus driver Ratan Singh. 7. Before the Learned Claims Tribunal for this fact the claimants Smt. Shameem Begum (CW 1) stated before the Claims Tribunal, her husband Liyaqat Mirza when he was travelling in State Transport Bus of Hoshangabad depot, this bus floated in the river and turned turtle. Her husband Liyaqat Mirza Beg floated in the river and his dead body was still not traceable till now. When the bus driver Ratan Singh had also floated in the river because of the fast speed of the water in the river. Aforesaid facts has got further support from the evidence of Sanjay Kumar NAW 1 who also stated that he saw that one State Transport bus while crossing the Machan river bridge, when water is flowing on the bridge, the concerning driver while crossing the bridge, at that time thus bus turned turtle into the river from the bridge due to the excessive force of water flowing on the bridge. One another man was sitting on Bonut as well as the driver of the bus both were floated in the river and their dead body also not traceable. This has got further support from the statement of Radheshyam NAW 2 who also stated the same facts about the incident and further stated that the man who was sitting on the Bonut, he was the teacher in Shahpur School. The bus conductor Purwar Singh NAW 3 who also stated that the concerned bus floated in the Machan river near Shahpur village while it was crossing the bridge. He also admitted that this accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver. He drove the bus on the bridge when water was flowing on the bridge. The bus conductor Purwar Singh NAW 3 who also stated that the concerned bus floated in the Machan river near Shahpur village while it was crossing the bridge. He also admitted that this accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver. He drove the bus on the bridge when water was flowing on the bridge. This itself suggested the negligence of the driver concerned, wherein Liyaqat Beg had lost its life. 8. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that on the basis of the evidence on record the Learned Claims Tribunal has erred in the finding that it is not proved that this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver Ratan Singh. Therefore, the aforesaid finding the Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside and we hold that on the basis of the evidence the claimants had proved that due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver Ratan Singh this accident occurred, in which Liyaqat Beg, who is the husband of the appellant No.1 and father of the appellants No.2 and 3, died. 9. The next point for consideration before us as to what should be the just and reasonable compensation amount the appellants are entitled to get from the respondent. 10. As per the statement of the claimant Shameem Begum her husband was working as a Physical Training Instructor at Shahpur School, his pay was Rs. 2,000/- per month, he was also doing some tuitions the amount of which comes to Rs. 2,000/-. This statement has got further support from the statement of R.S. Verma Accountant of Middle School, Shahpur who stated that the deceased Liyaqat Mirza Beg was Physical Training Instructor in the Middle School his basic pay is about 1,640/- per month. The total gross salary is about 2,552/- per month, a copy of the pay bill exhibit P-4 is also submitted by the appellants in his support. Therefore, we assessed monthly income of the deceased Rs.2,552/- per month and the annual income would be Rs. 30,624/- out of which 1/3 amount may be deducted as the expenses of deceased himself. Thereafter annual dependency would come to Rs. 20,400/-. The deceased Liyaqat is aged about 31 years. Therefore, the multiplier of 16 may be applied as per II Schedule of section 163-A of the M.V. Act. 30,624/- out of which 1/3 amount may be deducted as the expenses of deceased himself. Thereafter annual dependency would come to Rs. 20,400/-. The deceased Liyaqat is aged about 31 years. Therefore, the multiplier of 16 may be applied as per II Schedule of section 163-A of the M.V. Act. Thus, the total compensation amount would come to Rs.20,400x 16=3,26,400/- which appears to be just and reasonable compensation amount for the loss of earning due to the death of deceased Liyaqat Mirza Beg which the appellants are entitled· to get from the respondent. In addition to that the appellants are also entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- as the funeral expenses, 2,500/- for loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- for the loss of expectancy of life and in addition to that the appellant No.1 Smt. Shameem Begum, who is the wife of the deceased, is further entitled to get 5,000/- loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation amount would come to Rs. 3,40,900/- which the appellants are entitled to get from the respondents. 11. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal, Betul is set aside and it is held that the appellants are entitled to get the compensation amount of Rs.3,40,900/- from the respondents jointly and severally together with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing this claim petition from i.e. 28.1.1992 till the date of realization of the compensation amount. 12. Appellants are also entitled to get the costs of this appeal. Counsel fees of Rs. 1,000/-, if certified.