Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Sudhir Kumar Jain And Ors. on 30 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)MPHT103, 2000 A I H C 4718, (2000) 3 TAC 415, (2001) 4 CIVLJ 81, (2001) 2 MPLJ 399
Author: A.K. Mishra
Bench: A.K. Mishra
JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 19-12-1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sehore (Camp Ashta).
2. Claimant Sudhir Kumar Jain (25) was travelling in the bus bearing registration No. C.I.W. 7249 belonging to the appellant M.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 7-2-1990. It was involved in an accident with truck bearing registration No. M.O.U. 47. Claimant sustained injury in his right hand due to which it had to be amputated from wrist. It is alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by driver Kuber Singh. It is stated that he was subjected to operations 16 times wherein he incurred expenses amounting to rupees two lacs. The claimant had passed B.Com. Examination and was unmarried. His evidence suggests that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident.
3. Defence taken is that the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle is not correct. It is also denied that due to the accident, the claimant had to get his right hand cut involving huge expenditure. Ultimately, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,45,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. The liability to pay compensation has been fixed both on the appellant and the Insurance Company equally.
4. This appeal is at the instance of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation. No appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle, driver and the Insurance Company. Learned counsel Shri Yogesh Dhande, appearing for the appellant, contended that the award is liable to be set aside so far as the appellant is concerned. It is contended that the accident did not take place due to negligence of the driver. Rather, it was on account of negligence of the other vehicle. Therefore, the liability should be fastened on them. Learned counsel submitted that in case it is found that the appellant's driver is also responsible for the accident, the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive. We have considered the submissions made.
5. We find that the deceased was 25 year old at the time of the accident. He was possessing qualification of B.Com. and was unmarried. On account of the accident he was subjected to operations 16 times. Ultimately, his right hand had to be amputated which involved huge expenditure of Rs. 50,000.00 apart from other expenditure. The claimant must have been subjected to great pain and suffering during all this time. He has to remain without right hand throughout his life affecting adversely his career and marriage prospects. In this background, the award of compensation resting the liability on the appellant and the Insurance Company is not unreasonable. Contributory negligence on the part of both the vehicles is clear from the evidence on record. The finding of the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter is based on evidence and the same is sustainable.
6. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed being without any merit, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.