Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 676 (MP)

SADAR RANI SOUR v. NARAYAN PANDIT

2007-07-04

ARUN MISHRA, K.S.CHAUHAN

body2007
Judgment ( 1. ) THESE three miscellaneous appeals arise out from the same incident hence are being disposed of by the common order. ( 2. ) M. A. No. 792 of 2007 has been filed for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the award dated 18. 10. 2006 passed by Fourth M. A. C. T. , Chhatarpur in claim Case No. 102 of 2005 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been partly allowed with the direction to pay the compensation of Rs. 2,93,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for the death of Harpu caused in the motor accident. Whereas M. A. No. 109 of 2007 has been filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Satna, being aggrieved by the same award to set aside the award. ( 3. ) M. A. No. 2642 of 2006 has been preferred being aggrieved by the award dated 29. 3. 2006 passed by Fifth M. A. C. T. (Fast Track Court), Chhatarpur in Claim case No. 70 of 2005 whereby the claim application filed by Govind Yadav under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been partly allowed with the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 1,01,296 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for the injury sustained by him in motor accident. ( 4. ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 12. 8. 2005 Harpu along with Raju and govind Yadav were going towards Bak-swaha by motor cycle which was being driven by Raju. As soon as the motor cycle reached at Umarjhiriya Gate at the same time bus No. MP 16-A 0147 was coming from Heerapur side and driven by Narayan pandit rashly and negligently dashed the motor cycle resulting into death of Harpu and Raju on the spot and Govind Yadav sustained the injuries. That bus was owned by Manoj Kumar Chourasiya and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Satna. It was also averred that Harpu was 25 years of age and was performing the mason work on wages and earning Rs. 150 per day. Thus his income was Rs. 4,500 per month and annually Rs. 54,000. The legal representatives of the deceased suffered a great loss on account of death of Harpu, therefore, they filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 150 per day. Thus his income was Rs. 4,500 per month and annually Rs. 54,000. The legal representatives of the deceased suffered a great loss on account of death of Harpu, therefore, they filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 24,68,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. ( 5. ) THE driver of bus filed the written statement denying the claim and his liability mainly stating that he was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and has not committed this accident. On the other hand, the driver of motor cycle was driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently and caused this accident. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. ( 6. ) THE insurance company has also submitted the written statement repudiating the claim and its liability mainly contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of motor cycle. Further contending that the accident is the result of head-on collision between the motor cycle and bus. In such situation, the claimants are not entitled to get compensation from insurer alone. Furthermore, it was contended that the motor cycle was being driven in contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. ( 7. ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues. The evidence was recorded and after appreciating the evidence, Tribunal found that this accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus No. MP 16-A 0147 resulting into death of Harpu and hence the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 2,93,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. ( 8. ) BEING aggrieved by the quantum of compensation the claimants preferred an appeal (M. A. No. 792 of 2007) on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation. ( 9. ) THE insurer also preferred an appeal (M. A. No. 109 of 2007) being aggrieved by the same award for setting aside it on the ground that the bus driver alone was not responsible for the accident but the motor cycle driver was also responsible. ( 9. ) THE insurer also preferred an appeal (M. A. No. 109 of 2007) being aggrieved by the same award for setting aside it on the ground that the bus driver alone was not responsible for the accident but the motor cycle driver was also responsible. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have held that motorcyclist was responsible for this accident and at least 25 per cent to 50 per cent liability should have been fixed on the driver of motor cycle. The monthly income of the deceased has not been properly assessed. ( 10. ) GOVIND Yadav also filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act stating almost the similar facts as stated in Claim Case No. 792 of 2007 mainly contending that on account of this accident he sustained the serious injuries in different parts of his body. He got primary treatment at Bakswaha Hospital from where he was referred to District Hospital, chhatarpur where he remained hospitalised from 12. 8. 2005 to 14. 8. 2005 then he was referred to Gwalior Medical College where he remained hospitalised from 15. 8. 2005 to 22. 8. 2005. C. T. scan of the head of the appellant was done there, then he remained hospitalised from 23. 8. 2005 to 20. 9. 2005 in Dr. B. P. Khare Memorial Hospital at chhatarpur where his jaw was operated. His jaw has been damaged. There has been disfiguration of his mouth. Two teeth were broken. Thus he has suffered the permanent disability. He has incurred huge expenses in his treatment. At that time he was earning Rs. 200 per day by selling milk thus he filed the claim petition for awarding the compensation of Rs. 5,49,000. ( 11. ) THE owner, driver and insurer have taken the similar defence that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of motor cycle himself and the accident was not caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and almost similar defence was taken as in the case of M. A. No. 792 of 2007. ( 12. ) THE Tribunal after appreciating the evidence partly allowed the claim petition with the direction to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,01,296 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. ( 12. ) THE Tribunal after appreciating the evidence partly allowed the claim petition with the direction to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,01,296 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. Being aggrieved by the award the insurance company has filed M. A. No. 2642 of 2006 under section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act to set aside the award on the grounds mentioned therein. ( 13. ) LEARNED counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has not applied the proper multiplier. The proper amount is not awarded in the customary heads. The compensation is on lower side hence the same be enhanced. ( 14. ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurer has submitted that the driver of bus was not alone responsible for causing this accident but the motorcyclist was also responsible, therefore, the liability ought to have been fixed on the motorcyclist also. It is further submitted that three persons were travelling in the motor cycle which was being driven in contravention of the rules of Motor Vehicles Act. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of deceased and it is towards higher side. The material placed on record has not been properly considered hence the award be set aside or suitably modified. ( 15. ) THE main points for consideration in these appeals are that whether the Tribunal has committed any illegality in holding the bus driver solely responsible for causing this accident and further whether the tribunal has committed any illegality in awarding the excessive compensation to the claimants for the death of Harpu? ( 16. ) ON perusal of the award passed in claim Case No. 102 of 2005 it reveals that claimant Sadar Rani Sour stated that on 12. 8. 2005 her husband Harpu was going with Raju and Govind Yadav on the motor cycle to Bakswaha. As soon as they reached near Umarjhiriya Gate the driver of the bus No. MP 16-A 0147 by driving rashly and negligently dashed against the motor cycle. Consequently, her husband and the motorcyclist died on the spot. Pannalal lodged the report at Police Station, Bakswaha. She has filed the documents from exh. P1 to Exh. P4. The driver of the bus was not examined in this case. ( 17. Consequently, her husband and the motorcyclist died on the spot. Pannalal lodged the report at Police Station, Bakswaha. She has filed the documents from exh. P1 to Exh. P4. The driver of the bus was not examined in this case. ( 17. ) ON the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the bus driver. The Tribunal did not accept the argument that the accident occurred due to riding of three persons on the motor cycle. Since the driver of the bus was not examined in this case and there was no other evidence in this regard that the accident occurred due to imbalance by riding of three persons on the motor cycle, thus the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in relying the evidence adduced by the claimants in this case and rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the bus driver. ( 18. ) HOWEVER, in Claim Case No. 70 of 2005 the driver of the bus was examined on behalf of the non-applicants but the Tribunal did not accept that the motorcyclist was also responsible for the accident. The reasons stated are that no report was lodged by the driver against the motorcyclist. The criminal case has been registered against the driver of bus and the charge-sheet has been filed against him. Further the claimant Govind Yadav sustained injury in that accident, therefore, his presence was not doubted at the spot. ( 19. ) GOVIND Yadav, AW 1 and Jagdish yadav, AW 2 have given the evidence in support of the claim petition. ( 20. ) FROM the evidence adduced in the case, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the bus driver and not by the motorcyclist. It was not found proved that the accident occurred due to riding of three persons on the motor cycle. The finding of the Tribunal is based on the evidence. The Tribunal has not committed any illegality in holding the bus driver responsible to cause this accident. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is not sustainable that the motorcyclist was also responsible to some extent for causing this accident. The finding of the Tribunal is based on the evidence. The Tribunal has not committed any illegality in holding the bus driver responsible to cause this accident. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is not sustainable that the motorcyclist was also responsible to some extent for causing this accident. No case of contributory negligence is made out hence the Tribunal also rightly rejected the contention of insurance company that the accident was the outcome of contributory negligence. ( 21. ) NOW we have to consider whether the compensation awarded to the legal representatives of Harpu is adequate or not? ( 22. ) FROM the evidence adduced in the case, Sadar Rani Sour, AW 2 has stated that the age of her husband was of 25 years and he was doing the mason work and was getting Rs. 150 per day, monthly Rs. 4,500. However, the Tribunal found this income as exorbitant and assessed his income at rs. 100 per day, i. e. , monthly Rs. 3,000, annually Rs. 36,000. After deducting 1/3rd conventional expenses which the deceased would have spent on himself, had he been alive, annual loss of dependency worked out at Rs. 24,000 and after applying the multiplier of 12 the compensation worked out at Rs. 2,88,000 and further the sum of rs. 5,000 awarded in customary heads. Thus the total amount of compensation was awarded Rs. 2,93,000. ( 23. ) WE find that Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased but has not applied the correct multiplier. At the age group of 25 years the multiplier of 18 is applicable. Since the loss of annual dependency of the deceased was Rs. 24,000 and after applying the multiplier of 18 the compensation works out at Rs. 4,32,000. In addition to it the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 30,000 in customary heads such as funeral expenses, loss to estate, loss of expectancy of life including sum of Rs. 7,500 awarded to the widow on account of loss of consortium. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,62,000 (rupees four lakh sixty-two thousand ). The amount enhanced by this court shall carry the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. ( 24. 7,500 awarded to the widow on account of loss of consortium. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,62,000 (rupees four lakh sixty-two thousand ). The amount enhanced by this court shall carry the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. ( 24. ) ON the foregoing discussion, M. A. No. 792 of 2007 filed by the claimants deserves to be partly allowed, whereas m. A. No. 109 of 2007 and M. A. No. 2642 of 2006 filed by the insurance company deserve to be dismissed. ( 25. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the M. A. No. 792 of 2007 filed by the claimants is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above and m. A. No. 109 of 2007 and M. A. No. 2642 of 2006 filed by the insurance company are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 26. ) BEFORE parting with this order, we deem it proper that the direction be issued to the Tribunals to decide the claim petitions arising out of the same accident by common award to avoid any conflicting findings and complications in the matter. Orders accordingly.