Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bherlal vs Kamal Singh And Ors. on 1 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2005)ACC213
Author: S.K. Gangele
Bench: S.K. Gangele
JUDGMENT S.K. Gangele, J.
1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 9.10.2001 passed by the Fourth Additional M.A.C.T., Dewas, in Claim Case No. 16/2001.
2. The claimant was going from village Siya to Nenavad on 3.8.2000 on a motor cycle of his friend as a pillion rider at 8 O'clock in the night. Near village Navda Phate the aforesaid motor cycle was dashed by a jeep bearing No. M.P.09 S.6864 driven rashly and negligently by the driver. The appellant received serious injuries in the accident and thereafter he filed the claim application claiming compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/-.
3. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep and also the driver of the motor cycle who was under influence of liquor. The learned Tribunal further held that both the drivers of the jeep and the motor cycle are responsible for the accident and there was 30% responsibility of the driver of the motor bike and 70% of the driver of the jeep. The Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 8,500/- to the appellant after holding that there was no fracture injury to him. The Claims Tribunal further held that the appellant will get only Rs. 6,375/- because there was 30% contributory negligence of the driver of the bike.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the appellant will get Rs. 6,375/- only is perverse as there was no contributory negligence on the part of the appellant because he was a pillion rider and was not driving the motor bike.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the findings of the Claims Tribunal is as per law.
6. It is clear from the facts of the case that the appellant was not driving the motor bike, he was a pillion rider on the motor cycle. In that circumstances he cannot be said to be responsible for contributory negligence. The case of the appellant is of composite negligence and the Claims Tribunal has committed error of law in holding that the appellant is also responsible for the accident and awarding only 2/3rd of the compensation. The appellant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 8,500/- as a total compensation from the respondents and the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant is also liable for contributory negligence is hereby set aside.
7. Consequently, appeal of the appellant is allowed to the extent that the appellant will get full compensation of Rs. 8,500/-. Rs. 6,375/- has already been granted by the Tribunal hence the appellant will get remaining amount of the compensation at the same rate of interest which has already been granted by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal till realisation. The impugned award is modified to above extent. The appeal is allowed partly to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs.