Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradip Kotkar vs Sher Singh And Ors. on 19 April, 1993
Equivalent citations: II(1994)ACC130, 1994ACJ1174
JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J.
1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, against ah award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar, in Claim Case No. 66 of 1981 on 29.7.1983.
2. The matrix in short is that the truck bearing registration No. CPE 9018 is owned by respondent No. 2, Dilip Kumar. This truck at the relevant time was being driven by the respondent No. 1, Sher Singh, as an employee of the owner of this truck. This truck was insured with the respondent No. 4. The Matador bearing registration No. CPB 8901 was owned by respondent No. 3, Khalil Mohammad. This was being driven by one Iqbal Mohammad (since deceased) at the relevant time. On 22.11.1980, this Matador was proceeding from Indore towards Maheshwar while at the same time, the truck noted above was coming towards Indore. These two vehicles collided at about 11.45 a.m. on 22.11.1980 near village Dhamnod about 4 to 6 km. away from Indore. The driver of the Matador, however, died on account of the injuries sustained in this accident. Certain employees of Godrej Company were going on picnic from Indore to Maheshwar. This Matador was taken by them on hire for this purpose. In this accident, Sushant Chatterjee and Shailja Sule were killed while the four others, Pradip Kotkar (the appellant in this case), Gita Rao, Kailash Thakur and Deodas were injured. These three other injured persons also filed the claim petitions. The respondents denied their liability and contended that they were not liable in any manner. The fault was attributed to the driver of the Matador.
3. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that it was a case of composite negligence and that the rashness and negligence on the part of both the drivers resulted in the accident. The appellant-claimant was awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application, preferred on 6.5.1981. The appellant has come up to this court for enhancement of the award.
4. I have heard Mr. S.C. Bagadiya, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.H. Khan, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Indore. No one appeared for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
5. Mr. S.C. Bagadiya submitted that the amount of compensation awarded in this case is too low and deserved to be suitably enhanced. He also urged that the rate of interest also deserved to be increased. Mr. Khan, on the other hand, submitted that the award as passed by the learned Tribunal is quite just and proper and calls for no interference. As to the interest, Mr. Khan submitted that no such prayer is made in the appeal-memo in this behalf.
6. The Division Bench of this court in Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Ved Mitra Vohra 1970 ACJ 189 (MP), laid down the following rules for the assessment of damages in case of personal injuries sustained in an accident:
(i) The amount of compensation awarded must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation.
(ii) Regard must be had to the awards in comparable cases.
(iii) The sums awarded should to a considerable extent be conventional.
7. It is true that it is only by adherence to these self-imposed rules that the courts can decide like cases in like manner and bring about a measure of predictability of their awards.
8. Tested on the aforesaid rules, I find that the award made in this case is inadequate and deserves to be suitably modified.
9. In the instant case, the claimant suffered permanent disability in his left eye. It is urged that 95 per cent of vision is lost. At the relevant time of accident, the claimant was 27 years of age.
10. In Rose v. Ford (1937) 3 All ER 359, it was held as under:
I am of the opinion that, if a person's expectation of life is curtailed, he is necessarily deprived of something of value and that, if that loss to him is occasioned by the negligence of another, that other is liable to him in damages for the loss.
11. In this case, there is impairment. The claimant stood deprived of happy life and this is a permanent feature as a result of the permanent disability.
12. The Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation and its avowed object is to compensate the victim properly. Being a welfare legislation its intendment ought to be kept in mind. It is held and rightly so that the appellant suffered permanent disability due to injuries on the left eye and this reduced the earning capacity at least by 40 per cent.
13. In Parmanand v. Manohardas 1990 ACJ 888 (MP), a Division Bench case, it is held as under:
Having regard to some impairment in the healing of the right ear and some injuries on the face which, according to the claimant, have caused some disfiguration, we think that an amount of Rs. 25,000/-would be just and fair compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by the claimant.
14. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and deserves to be enhanced. In my opinion, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- would be just and fair compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by the appellant.
15. Mr. Khan submitted that the appeal-memo does not contain a prayer for the enhancement of the rate of interest. In my view, this contention has no force. The court is empowered to consider even oral prayer and do justice. This can be done even when the cross-objections for this purpose are not preferred.
16. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Anokhilal 1992 WN (II) 9: 1993 ACJ 216 (MP), it is held as under:
Mr. G.K. Neema, counsel for the respondents-claimants, submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the application, whereas it ought to have been at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Mr. M.L. Dhupar counteracted and submitted that there are no cross-objections. But in my opinion, the submission of Mr. Dhupar has no merit as the Full Bench of this court in the case of Prakramchand v. Chuttan 1991 ACJ 1051 (MP), has taken a view that the Tribunal is bound to award interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and for that no cross-objections are necessary, as powers under Order 41, rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, are wide. [Samaraj Oil Mills & Fertilizers v. D. Kothandaraman 1970 ACJ 405 (Madras); Venkataraman v. Abdul Munaf Sahib 1971 ACJ 77 (Madras) and Jaswant Rai v. National Transport & General Co. Ltd. 1972 ACJ 21 (P&H), referred to Oriental Fire & General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Dhanno 1987 ACJ 759 (MP); Kishori v. Gulabkhan 1988 ACJ 860 (MP); Oriental Fire & General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Josheda 1991 ACJ 349 (Calcutta); United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angammal 1991 ACJ 449 (Madras) and Prakramchand v. Chuttan 1991 ACJ 1051 (MP), relied on].
17. It is, therefore, just and proper to accept the prayer and to increase the rate of interest from 6 per cent per annum to 12 per cent per annum so as to partly offset the impact of devaluation.
18. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified inasmuch as the appellant is held to be entitled to get from the respondents a sum of Rs. 25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application, i.e., 6.5.1981 till realisation.
19. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. ` allowed, if certified. A memo of costs be prepared accordingly.
20. The record of the Tribunal be returned immediately.