Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 867 (MP)

Dinesh Lodhi v. Rekha Agrawal

2010-08-26

R.K.GUPTA

body2010
JUDGMENT R.K. Gupta, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the claimant for the enhancement of the amount of compensation and also to challenge the percentage of negligence. 2. The Tribunal in the present case has held the income of the Appellant @ Rs. 1,500/- per month and the date of accident is 15th April, 1998. The tribunal has also held that the deceased was negligent up to the extent of 50%. These findings are challenged by the claimants by filing the present appeal. 3. The facts leading to the present case are that on the date of accident i.e. on 15th April, 1988, the deceased Devendra Kumar was on his by-cycle and according to the claim application the Bus bearing registration No. MP-04-E/7433 which was driven rashly and negligently dashed the said cycle. With the result the deceased suffered with the injuries resulting into his death on the spot. The Naksha Panchanama Ext.-P-2 was proved by the Appellant. According to the same the place of accident is NH-12 i.e. Jabalpur to Bhopal. 4. On the basis of the same, the Tribunal held that the deceased was negligent up to the extent of 50% as before joining the main road i.e. National Highway the deceased has not taken precautions and care to look both the sides whether any vehicle is coming and on that basis the Tribunal held that the deceased was negligent up to the extent of 50%. 5. It is contended on the behalf of the Appellant that Naksha Panchnama Ext-P-2 itself indicates that the deceased has already crossed more than 1/2 of the road after joining the main road and since the bus was in excessive speed therefore, there had been negligence and on that basis the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was negligent upto the extent of 50% is not correct. 6. Ext-P-2 itself indicates that finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was negligent up to the extent of 50% is not correct. 7. It is contended that since the deceased has already crossed 50% of the road of the National Highway then negligence of the deceased has to be 20% and not 50%. 8. On the basis of the same, I hold that the deceased was negligent up to the extent of 20% only and accordingly the compensation has to be paid. 7. It is contended that since the deceased has already crossed 50% of the road of the National Highway then negligence of the deceased has to be 20% and not 50%. 8. On the basis of the same, I hold that the deceased was negligent up to the extent of 20% only and accordingly the compensation has to be paid. In the present case before the Tribunal no evidence was adduced that the income of the Appellant was either Rs. 2,000/- or more than as claimed by the Appellants. In the absence of any documentary evidence the Tribunal has taken into account the notional income of the deceased @ 1,500/- per month and on that basis the compensation has been assessed. 9. Under these circumstances, I do not find that the Tribunal has committed any illegality in holding that the income of the deceased was @ Rs. 1,500/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded the total amount of compensation as Rs. 1,92,000/- and the Appellant shall be entitled to 80% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 1,52,000/-. In the present case the Tribunal has only awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses. The said amount is not adequate. 10. Under the circumstances Rs. 8,000/- are enhanced to the same. Thus, the difference of amount comes to Rs. 1,60,000/- to which the Appellant shall be entitled. All the Respondents shall be jointly and severely responsible to pay compensation within a period of 60 days from the date either Respondents received the certified copy of the order passed today or the same is submitted to them by the Appellant.