Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukhtiyar vs M.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... on 27 August, 1987
Equivalent citations: II(1987)ACC413
JUDGMENT R.K. Varma, J.
1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 114/1984 (M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mukhtyar and Anr.).
2. This is an appeal by the claimant-injured against the award dated 12-1-1984 passed by the Third Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 206/1981 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 14,000/- to the claimant-appellant together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:
On 11-4-1981 at about 1.30 p.m. a truck bearing registration No. MPN 3920 and being driven by the appellant on the road between Dhamnod and Indore, when it approached a place known as Sardarji Ka Dhaba, collided with a bus bearing registration No. MPN 7413 belonging to the Corporation-respondent No. 1, which was coming from the opposite direction, as a result of which the Cabin of the truck was smashed and the right leg of the appellant-claimant was crushed and ultimately had to be amputated from above the knee. The claimant filed the instant claim petition claiming Rs. 1,20,000/- as total compensation for the injury. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, has found that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles viz., the bus as well as the truck. However, the learned Tribunal held that the bus-driver was less negligent as compared to the truck-driver and apportioned the negligence and accordingly the liability in the ratio of 1/3 : 2/3 respectively. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal has fixed the amount of compensation at Rs. 42,000/- out of which the bus driver and the Corporation being the owner of the bus, have been held liable to pay only its l/3rd i.e. Rs. 14,000/-. Interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum has also been awarded as stated at the outset.
4. Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation and the apportionment of liability as fixed by the learned Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal.
5. The Corporation, on the other hand, has filed a cross-appeal (M.A. No. 114/1984) challenging the finding of negligence of the bus-driver as well as the quantum of compensation awarded.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant has contended that there is no justification for the learned Tribunal to hold that the bus-driver Was less negligent than the truck driver especially when it is a case of headlong collision.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence and the award, we are of the opinion that the bus-
driver as well as the. truck driver were equally negligent and responsible for the accident. As such, the liability has to be apportioned in equal measure between the two parties, viz. the appellant-claimant who was himself driving the truck and the two respondents, the owner and driver of the bus.
8, As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in comparable cases involving amputation of leg a compensation of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- or more have been awarded. This Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the injury caused by accident which resulted in amputation of the leg in Magbool v. The State of MP. Misc. Appeal No. 152/84 decided on 14-8-84. Accordingly, we think just and proper to award Rs. 50,000/- as total compensation out of which the liability of the respondents to pay compensation would be only half of that amount as per the aforesaid apportionment of liability.
9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by the learned Tribunal shall stand modified inasmuch as the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to receive Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand ruppees) only instead of Rs. 14,000/-as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the respondents as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
10. The cross-appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 114/84, M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mukhtyar and Anr.) fails and is hereby dismissed.
11. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of both these appeals.