Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1167 (MP)

Bablu v. Dheeraj Singh

2006-10-04

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. Both these appeals filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) arise out of the award dated 22.1.1998 passed by IV Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar (for short the 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 6/1996. 2. The appellant of M.A. 423/1998 filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Act stating therein that on 16.3.1995 he along with others was travelling from Chhatarpur to Sagar by Jeep bearing Registration No. MP 09-0678 driven by first respondent and owned by the 2nd respondent. When the said jeep reached near village Jairai at about 2.30 a.m. as a result of rash and negligent driving of it by the first respondent, it could not be controlled by him and turned turtle. In the said accident he suffered grievous injuries on his chest, waist and on back. A report was lodged at Police Station, Sagar. He was admitted in District Hospital, Sagar. Thereafter due to the seriousness of his injuries he was taken to hospital at Gwalior for further treatment. He further stated that due to the injuries his ribs and the spinal cord were fractured. Accordingly, he sought compensation of Rs.8 lakhs from the respondents. 3. The respondents in the written statement denied the averments made in the claim petition. It was stated that the Jeep was not being driven by the first respondent but was being driven by the brother of the claimant, who drove it rashly and negligently and caused accident. The Claims Tribunal framed as many as 9 issues and after recording the evidence held that the accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and award compensation of Rs.70,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimant from the date of claim petition till payment. Feeling aggrieved the claimant appellant filed Misc. Appeal No. 423/1998 for enhancement and the owner and driver has filed Misc. Appeal No. 416/1998 for setting aside of the award and for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the Claims Tribunal has committed error in not awarding just compensation and the compensation awarded is too low. Appeal No. 423/1998 for enhancement and the owner and driver has filed Misc. Appeal No. 416/1998 for setting aside of the award and for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the Claims Tribunal has committed error in not awarding just compensation and the compensation awarded is too low. The learned counsel for the owner and driver contended that the accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by the brother of the claimant and as such the owner and driver cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation. It is also contended by them that the compensation awarded is on much higher side. 5. From the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them it is clear that the occurrence of the accident by the Jeep bearing Registration No. MP 09-0678 owned by Jageshwar Prasad original appellant of M.A. No. 416/1996 and the original respondent No.2 of M.A. 423/1998 is not in dispute. 6. Dhiraj Singh (AW 1) deposed that the jeep was being driven by respondent No. 1 Bablu rashly and negligently causing accident. He has specifically denied that the jeep was being driven by Santosh. Jagdish Vishwakarma (NAW 1) son of the owner of the jeep said that the jeep was given to Moti Singh Yadav for his personal work. The jeep was taken by Bablu driver of his father's jeep. Motilal (NAW 2) deposed that the jeep was driven by Santosh but as he was not present at the time of accident nor is he an eye witness of the accident, his evidence is of no help for deciding this point. Bablu driver (NAW 3) stated that at the time of accident Santosh Yadav was driving the jeep. However, he admitted that he did not make any complaint that he was not driving the jeep but Santosh was driving the same to the police and the criminal case was registered against him. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence the Tribunal held that at the time of accident respondent No.2 Bablu was driving the vehicle and not Santosh. This finding of the Tribunal appears to be based on correct appreciation of evidence and needs no interference. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence the Tribunal held that at the time of accident respondent No.2 Bablu was driving the vehicle and not Santosh. This finding of the Tribunal appears to be based on correct appreciation of evidence and needs no interference. 7. So far as the quantum of compensation the claimant Dheeraj Singh (AW 1) stated that he suffered fracture of 6 ribs and of his spinal cord in the said accident. He also deposed that after accident he cannot sit and walk but he has to remain in lying down position. He also deposed that after the accident he was treated at Sagar and thereafter at Gwalior. He produced a discharge ticket of J.A. Group Hospital, Gwalior as Ex. P-2 and P- 3. He further deposed that he is an agriculturist and an artist of folk dance and used to give private programmes and programmes in Akashwani Chhatarpur and Lucknow as and when called for. After the accident he is not able to work and take part in the folk dance programme. 8. Dr. HL. Bhuria (AW 2) Assistant Surgeon of District Hospital, Sagar deposed that he examined the claimant on the date of accident. He observed that the claimant was unable to move his legs. He was advised X-ray of chest and waist. As per X-ray report Ex. P-58 the claimant suffered fracture of left ribs No. 3 and 4 and fracture of 12th dorsal vertebra. The appellant has also filed a disability certificate Ex. P-1 in which his disability has been assessed to be 50%. 9. Now it has to be seen as to whether the Claims Tribunal has awarded just compensation in this case. The Claims Tribunal assessing the monthly income of the claimant to be Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/-awarded Rs.15,000/- for treatment, Rs.10,000/- for future treatment, Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.40,000/for future loss of earning; awarded the total compensation of Rs.70,000/-. In my view the compensation awarded is on lower side. Though there is no definite evidence with respect to income of the claimant, however, having regard to the fact that he was doing agriculture and was also an artist, his income can be assessed to Rs.3,000/- per month. He must be spending 1/3rd for himself leaving Rs.2,000/- for his family. In the said accident he suffered fracture of ribs and 12th dorsal vertebra. He must be spending 1/3rd for himself leaving Rs.2,000/- for his family. In the said accident he suffered fracture of ribs and 12th dorsal vertebra. He was treated at Sagar and at Gwalior for more than three months. According to the disability certificate his permanent disability is to the extent of 50%. He cannot sit and walk properly, his efficiency has certainly affected,. During treatment he must have spent on treatment, special diet and transport. It has also come in the evidence that his treatment is going on. In the circumstances, in my view the applicant is entitled for Rs.50,000/- for permanent disability, Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- for treatment past and future, Rs.10,000/- for expenses of attendant, special diet and transportation, Rs.9,000/- for loss of earning during the period of treatment. Thus, the appellant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs. 1,19,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till payment. 10. Accordingly, Misc. Appeal No. 423/1998 filed by the claimant is allowed to the extent indicated above. Misc. Appeal No. 416/1998 filed by the owner and driver of the jeep is dismissed. No order as to cost.