Madhya Pradesh High Court
Usha Jhingran And Ors. vs Budhsen And Ors. on 18 July, 1990
Equivalent citations: I(1991)ACC634
JUDGMENT B.C. Verma, J.
1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, is by the unsuccessful claimants, who laid a claim for compensation before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the death of Shri P.N. Jhingran, husband of the first appellant and father of the remaining. On a finding that the appellants could not prove the cause of death of P.N. Jhingran, the Claims Tribunal has dismissed the entire claim. It has, however, been found that if the appellants were to succeed, the compensation payable would be Rs. 1, 22, 400/- with interest at 6 per cent thereon from the date of the application. The liability of the insurer, in terms of the insurance policy, has been determined at Rs. 50, 000/-. The Tribunal also noted that only general damages were claimed. No special damages were claimed.
2. The facts are that on 3-8-1977, Shri P.N. Jhingran, an employee of the Sun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur, met with an accident while he was proceeding to the factory. The truck, owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by his employee (respondent No. 1), dashed against the scooter driven by the deceased P.N. Jhingran. He fell down unconscious and was removed to the hospital, where he lay in the same condition until March 8, 1978, when he died. His monthly income was then said to be Rs. 1, 413/-. Pensionary benefits were claimed at Rs. 500/- per month until the age of 75 years. The vehicle, admittedly, was insured with respondent No. 3 and its liability was to the extent of Rs. 50, 000/-. The claim was contested, but the driver was not put in the witness-box. The claimants examined witnesses, including one Miss Theressa, a teacher in some local school, a rickshaw puller and also one Rameshwar. On assessment of that evidence and from the fact of non-examination of the driver, the Tribunal held that the truck driver was negligence and rash in driving the vehicle. It concluded that Shri Jhingran received injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 1. It negatived and in our opinion, rightly any defence of contributory negligence. Since we are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal in this behalf, we do not propose to deal with the evidence in detail. The evidence of Miss Theresa appears to be quite convincing, when she deposed that the truck driver dashed against the scooter driven by the deceased Jhingran, and he could have avoided the accident, if he were cautious and not negligent. The Tribunal also rightly drew adverse inference against the respondents because of the non-examination of the driver.
3. It is significant that in this case, no medical evidence is adduced, showing the cause of death of Shri Jhingran. It is no doubt true, through the evidence of Miss Theresa and Smt. Usha Jhingran (P.W.1), that after receiving the injuries, the late Jhingran did not regain consciousness. No Doctor was, however, examined to show that it was due to the injuries received by the deceased Jhingran, as a result of the truck dashing against his scooter, that he died. It was certainly incumbent upon the claimants to have proved the cause of death by examining the Doctor, who attended the deceased or through one other expert evidence on the basis of the available record, which could have permitted the Court to infer that death was the direct consequence of the injury so received. Unfortunately that has not been done. It is also not shown on record that such evidence was not available. We fail to see why an attempt was not made to bring that evidence on record. Shri Sahani, appearing for the appellants, submitted that mere non-production of medical evidence should not result in dismissal of the entire claim. For this proposition, learned Counsel placed reliance on Waraj Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. TJ. Raman Pillai 1968 A.C J. 127, and Sukhdev Singh v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation 1969 A.C.J. 197. We have perused both these decisions. We, however, do not find anything therein, which may lend support to the appellants' contention. These decisions are not at all helpful to the appellants. We, therefore, affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the appellants have not been able to demonstrate that the death resulted from the injury sustained by the deceased on account of the accident. No compensation can, therefore, be paid to the appellants on account of the death.
4. One thing, however, noticeable is that the evidence on record and particularly the testimony of Miss Theressa establishes that the deceased was hit by the truck while he was proceeding to the factory on the scooter. He sustained injury and fell down. He remained unconscious thereafter for a period of about one year, before he died. The injury sustained by him, therefore, must be of a serious nature. Although death could not be ascribed to that injury, yet, it is that injury which had completely incapacitated him for the rest of his life. Some compensation must, therefore, be awarded for that injury, as the deceased remained in hospital for all that period. Although there is no definite evidence about the expenses incurred in the hospital, but then one can well assume that the family must have spent something over the treatment and attending the deceased. In our opinion, looking to the long period of suffering to the family, the appellants must be compensated. Under the circumstances, a sum of Rs. 30, 000/- shall be the just compensation.
5. For the aforesaid findings, we allow this appeal partly. We direct that the respondents shall pay to the appellants Rs. 30, 000/- as compensation. The appellants shall get 30% of the claim awarded on A also get interest on this amount at 6 per cent per annum from the date of application untill realisation. It is made char that for this claim, all the three respondents shall be severally and jointly liable. The appellants shall get costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee in this appeal as also in the claim case is fixed at Rs. 500/-.