Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 33 (MP)

Laxman Prasad Pandey v. Harish Kumar Mehta

2015-01-08

N.K.GUPTA

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. The appellant has challenged the award dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahdol in Claim Case No.1 of 2012 whereby, a compensation of Rs.5,92,608/- was granted to respondents No.4, 5 and 6. 3. However, no compensation was granted to the appellant. 4. Facts of the case in short, are that, the applicant and his son (respondent No.6) have moved an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal that on 1.5.2009 the appellant was taking his wife on scooter to Rama Matching Centre for purchase of some clothes. The respondent No.1 brought a motor cycle from the opposite side and dashed it with the scooter of the appellant and therefore, Vijaylaxmi, wife of the appellant, fell down from the scooter and sustained some head injuries. On 4.5.2009 she had expired. Consequently, the applicant along with his son have filed a claim application before the Tribunal by making his daughters respondents No.4 and 5 as non-applicants. 5. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties the Tribunal found that the appellant was contributory negligent for 50% and therefore, after assessing the entire position, 50% compensation was granted to the respondents No.4, 5 and 6. 6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the appellant has three main grievances in the present case. Firstly, he was wrongly found to be contributory negligent. Secondly, no consortium was given to him in computation of the claim and thirdly, that no compensation was granted to him though compensation was granted to his children whereas, he was the person who suffered due to death of his wife. 7. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that road was divided into two parts and appellant who, was driving his scooter towards Rama Matching Centre was at wrong side. The respondent No.1 could not expect that some scooter driver would come with scooter on wrong side. Under such circumstances, the tribunal has rightly found that the appellant was equally negligent with respondent No.1 There is no reason to take a different view relating to contributory negligence of the appellant. 8. The respondent No.1 could not expect that some scooter driver would come with scooter on wrong side. Under such circumstances, the tribunal has rightly found that the appellant was equally negligent with respondent No.1 There is no reason to take a different view relating to contributory negligence of the appellant. 8. So far as the compensation relating to consortium is concerned, the Tribunal has computed the funeral expenses, loss of estate and everything by computing the compensation. However, at the most a sum of Rs.5000/- may be added in the head of loss of consortium to the appellant but, due to third count, it is not required to be added in the present appeal. 9. It would be apparent that the appellant was found contributory negligent to the accident and therefore, the children of the deceased were entitled to get the 50% compensation from the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and they were entitled to get 50% of compensation from the appellant himself. The Court has granted 50% compensation against the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Out of that compensation the appellant could get 25% of that compensation whereas, he was liable to pay equal amount of the compensation to the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 due to his negligence and therefore, the sum which is to be paid by the appellant towards the respondents No.4 to 6 is more than the sum which he could claim in his share out of the compensation granted by the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal has directed that the appellant will not get any share out of the compensation awarded. When the appellant is not entitled to get any sum as a compensation in that aspect, then it was for the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 to file an appeal to add the amount of consortium for the appellant in the compensation granted by the Tribunal. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no substance in the appeal. On the contrary the appellant is required to provide the 50% of the share of the compensation to the respondents No.4, 5 and 6. There is no reason to interfere in the findings of the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed at motion stage. N. K. Salunke for appellant; Shreyas Pandit with Santosh Sahu for respondent No.3.