Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 265 (MP)

Vibha Devi v. Paramjeet Singh

2011-02-24

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT I. This appeal is filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 9.3.2006 passed by learned 13th Additional MACT, in claim case No. 193/2005. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,40,064/- but on account of recording the finding of contributory negligence, 50% of the amount has been deducted while making the payment of said compensation and the said has been paid @ 6% from the date of filing of the application. 2. Appellant had preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 3. On perusal of the record, indicates that on 10.2.2004 at about 5.55 p.m. near Anshul Chouraha, Sukliya death has been caused by Nagar Sewa Bus No. MP 14/H-0606. As per the case, when the said bus has been stopped in front of bus of deceased, he went to say to driver of the bus not to travel the passenger and when he was standing on the footrest, driver of the Nagar Sewa Bus No. MP 14/H-0606 by rashly and negligently dashed the deceased. The deceased had fallen down in the road and received injuries and died after some time. In view of forgoing narration, claim petition was filed. 4. Initially the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim, however, after remand of the matter by this Court, it was allowed, however, the finding of controbutory negligence of 50% has been recorded. 5. Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has vehemently argued in support of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and contends that it is the deceased who was negligent to stand up on the footrest of the driver of the vehicle. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of contributory negligence has rightly been recorded by the Tribunal and the compensation has rightly been awarded by the Tribunal and not liable to be enhanced. 6. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of contributory negligence has rightly been recorded by the Tribunal and the compensation has rightly been awarded by the Tribunal and not liable to be enhanced. 6. On the other hand, Shri R.N. Dave, learned counsel for the appellants, contends that in the manner in which the accident has taken place, it cannot be ignored that it is the driver of bus No. MP 14/H-0606 who was negligent and looking to the fact that the deceased went to the driver of the vehicle stand in front of his vehicle and on standing footrest complained why the bus was stopped, at that time the driver of the vehicle rashly and negligently driven the said bus and he fell down on road and received head injury. In such circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal on the point of contributory negligence is unsustainable. So far as the enhancement part is concerned. it is contended that the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the income of the deceased was Rs. 100/- per day and after deducting 113 from his personal expenses, applying the multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation may further be enhanced. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I found much substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. The incident has taken place when the driver of vehicle No. MP 14/H-0606 has stopped his vehicle ahead to the vehicle of the deceased. When the deceased coming out from his vehicle to make complaint to the driver of the said vehicle and when he was standing on a footrest, the driver of the vehicle driven It rashly and negligently and at that time he fell down and received injuries over the head and due to which he succumbed. In such circumstances the finding of contributory negligent recorded by the Tribunal is based on improbable discussion and liable to be set aside. 8. Now coming to the point of enhancement, it is seen from the record that earning of the deceased was Rs. 3,0001- per month and as discussed by the Tribunal, if we deduct 1/3 towards his personal expenses, then annual income comes to Rs. 24,000/-. The age of the deceased was in between 35-40 however, multiplier of 16 would be applicable, thereby loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,84,000/-. Rs. 3,0001- per month and as discussed by the Tribunal, if we deduct 1/3 towards his personal expenses, then annual income comes to Rs. 24,000/-. The age of the deceased was in between 35-40 however, multiplier of 16 would be applicable, thereby loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,84,000/-. Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded towards the treatment when the deceased was hospitalilzed and if we add the same then it comes to Rs. 4,04,000/-. In conventional head Rs. 25,000/- is being awarded and we add the same, then it comes to Rs. 4,29,000/-. As per award of Claims Tribunal Rs. 1,82,032 has been allowed, if we deduct the said amount, then remaining amount comes to Rs. 2,46,968/- and by arounding the same, it is made Rs. 2,47,000/-. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is enhanced to the sum of Rs. 2,47,000/- in addition to the compensation already awarded by the tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs. .