Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 199 (MP)

RAMLAL v. STATE OF M P

2005-02-09

A.K.AWASTHY

body2005
Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT/claimant has filed the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act for the enhancement of the award dated 13-3- 2001 in Claim Case no. 55/97 passed by learned IInd MACT, Barwani wherein the amount of rs. 10,000/- was provided to the appellant. ( 2. ) THE case of the claimant is that on 26-7-97 at about 8. 15 p. m. at khemakhadi Culvert in Village Kari when the claimant was going on Bajaj scooter, the Motor Cycle driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2 hit the vehicle of the claimant and the claimant has received the fracture of his left leg and the injuries on his head and left hand. That the first information report was lodged against the respondent on 29-7-97 at Police Station Barwani and the claimant was medically examined wherein it was found that he has received the fracture of his left leg. The claimant has prayed for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the respondent. ( 3. ) THE respondent has denied that the accident has taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving and it is alleged that the claimant has not received the fracture or any injury and as such, the claim petition should be dismissed. ( 4. ) THE learned Tribunal after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties has held that the claimant is entitled for the total amount of Rs. 20,000/- on account of the contributory negligence the amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest was awarded to the claimant. ( 5. ) THE only ground on which the enhancement of the award is prayed is that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that claimant was also responsible for the accident. That the learned Tribunal has erred in concluding the accident has taken place on account of the contributory negligence and as such, the total amount Rs. 20,000/- was provided to the claimant. ( 6. ) CLAIMANT Ramlal (P. W. I) has stated that when he was going on bajaj Scooter the Bullet Motor Cycle driven rashly and negligently by respondent came from the opposite side and the Motor Cycle was not having the light and in spite of the efforts by the claimant to save himself, the Motor Cycle has hit the Scooter and the claimant has received the injury. There is nothing in the cross-examination of Ramlal (P. W. I) to dis-believe his statement. However, ramlal (P. W. I) has lodged the FIR in the Police Station the Police has registered the case against the respondent under Section 279, 336 of the IPC. There is no evidence that the respondent has also lodged the report or taken the defence that the accident has taken place on account of the negligent driving. Mohan (P. W. 3) has stated that the Bullet was driven by the respondent without having the light and on account of the negligence of the respondent in driving the Bullet, the accident has taken place. The statement of Mohan (P. W. 3) also indicates that the accident has not taken place on account of the negligence on the part of the claimant. Consequently, it is held that the learned tribunal has not considered properly the statement of the eye witnesses in the case and it has erred in holding that the claimant was also negligent at the time of the driving of the vehicle. This is a case of the accident on account of the negligence of the respondent. Consequently, half of the claim amount was wrongly deducted by the Tribunal. The claimant is entitled for the entire amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the respondents. ( 7. ) THE appeal is, therefore, allowed and it is ordered that the claimant Ramlal is entitled to get the amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand)from the respondents jointly and severally. The claimant will get the interest of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the application on the enhanced amount of Rs. 10,000/ -. ( 8. ) WITH the aforesaid modification, the appeal is allowed. Parties are directed to bear their own cost of the appeal. Misc. Appeal allowed.