Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Singh And Anr. vs Govind And Anr. on 8 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006ACJ2656
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J.
1. These appeals have been preferred by the claimant, driver and the owner aggrieved by an award dated 13.12.2001 passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khandwa in Claim Case No. 69 of 2000. The claimant has prayed for enhancement of compensation whereas driver and owner have preferred their appeals as insurer has been exonerated.
2. Claimant Narendra Singh averred in claim petition that on 10.1.2000 at about 11.15 a.m., when he was standing in front of his house, the tractor-trolley bearing registration No. MP 10-A 3753 owned by Inder, driven by Govind alias Nanhu came to the village Khajuri and asked for the way of agricultural field of Pyara Singh. At the request of Govind alias Nanhu, respondent No. 1, the driver of the said tractor, claimant Narendra Singh boarded the tractor-trolley loaded with the bricks which was to be unloaded in the field of Pyara Singh. On the way to the agricultural land, Govind alias Nanhu drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner owing to which, the trolley turned turtle. Claimant Narendra Singh fell down and sustained injuries in his backbone. He has incurred permanent disability due to paralysis of both limbs below waist level to the extent of 100 per cent. He was unable to perform his day-to-day duties and has suffered loss of income. He was earning by way of agricultural operation a sum of Rs. 60,000 per annum. In addition, he was a skilled mason and used to earn Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 30,000 per annum. Due to the accident, he was deprived of his entire income. Claimant Narendra Singh was aged about 35 years at the relevant time. He has incurred expenditure of Rs. 1,40,000 on the treatment and under the various heads claimed total compensation of Rs. 18,90,000 before the Tribunal.
3. The driver Govind alias Nanhu and the owner Inder in their reply contended that the claimant Narendra Singh was a skilled mason employed by the owner for construction of shed on the agricultural land of Pyara Singh, which was taken on adhbatai i.e., on crop sharing basis by the owner of the tractor-trolley Inder for a period of five years. An agreement giving the land on crop sharing basis was executed on 10.5.1999. The accident took place on 10.1.2000. As per the agreement, with the consent of Pyara Singh for keeping the agricultural implements and for keeping of oxen, shed was to be constructed. In that connection, bricks were taken by Inder. At that time, while he was transporting the bricks, the trolley turned turtle. Claimant Narendra Singh suffered injuries. Driver Govind alias Nanhu was not negligent. The tractor-trolley was used for agricultural purposes at the relevant time. That permanent disability has not been incurred by the claimant Narendra Singh. Excessive compensation has been claimed.
4. The insurer in the written statement contended that the tractor-trolley was not used for the agricultural purposes. Taking up the bricks cannot be said to be a purpose connected with agriculture. The driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Hence, the insurer is not liable to make the payment of compensation.
5. Claims Tribunal has found that the disability to the extent of 100 per cent has been incurred by claimant Narendra Singh. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,01,000 on account of disability incurred by the claimant Narendra Singh. Rs. 1,00,000 for expenditure on treatment, towards conveyance charges Rs. 20,000, for loss of earning capacity at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month and after applying the multiplier of 14, a sum of Rs. 3,36,000 has been awarded. Rs. 20,000 for physical pain and mental suffering and Rs. 25,000 for future treatment have been awarded. The insurer has been exonerated from making the payment of compensation as it has been held by the Tribunal that the tractor-trolley were not used at the time of the accident for agricultural purposes. Agreement has not been produced by Inder. It has not been established that the land was taken on crop sharing basis for a period of five years. Hence, the insurance company has been exonerated from making the payment of compensation.
6. Mr. Ashish Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant has submitted that the liability to make the payment of compensation ought to have been saddled on the insurer. He has further submitted that compensation awarded is inadequate. The total income has been taken to be Rs. 2,000 per month, which is inadequate and less compensation has been awarded for physical pain and mental suffering. Hence, compensation needs to be suitably enhanced.
7. Mr. Anil Lala, the learned Counsel appearing for the driver and owner has assailed the award on the ground that Inder has made the statement with reference to the agreement, which he has brought to the court that the land in question was taken on crop sharing basis from Pyara Singh in village Khajuri. Inder is an agriculturist. The bricks were transported at the time of accident for the purpose of construction of shed for keeping agricultural implements, etc., in agricultural field owned by Pyara Singh. Thus, tractor-trolley was used at the time of accident for the purpose connected with the agriculture. It was not used for any commercial purpose. Thus, the finding recorded by Tribunal that tractor-trolley was not used for the purpose connected with the agriculture at the relevant time is bad in law.
8. Mr. Rakesh Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the insurer has submitted that agreement was not produced by the owner. The case set up by the claimant Narendra Singh is that he was standing and was given lift in the tractor-trolley to show the agricultural land owned by Pyara Singh. In the cross-examination, version has been changed by claimant Narendra Singh. Hence, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the tractor-trolley was used at the relevant time for the purpose other than agriculture is justified. No interference is called for in the award inasmuch as the insurer has been rightly exonerated by the Claims Tribunal.
9. The main question for determination before us is that whether the land was taken by Inder on crop sharing basis from Pyara Singh and transportation of bricks can be said to be a purpose not connected with the agriculture purposes in the facts of the case, we find that a categoric statement was made by the owner and driver in their reply that the land owned by Pyara Singh was taken by Inder on crop sharing basis for a period of five years. In the cross-examination of Inder, it has come that he has brought the relevant document of crop sharing in the court. Thus, statement has been made by Inder that the land was taken on crop sharing basis with reference to document, which he has brought to the Tribunal no adverse inference could be drawn against Inder particularly when he has brought the relevant document to the court. In case statement was doubted documents should have been got exhibited in the cross-examination. No suggestion was made that he has not brought the document to the Tribunal. The cross-examination was stopped after it was stated that he was having the relevant document with him at the time of deposition.
10. Thus, in our opinion, there is nothing to doubt the statement of Inder, which has been supported by the driver of the tractor-trolley Govind alias Nanhu, NAW 1, that the land was taken on crop sharing basis by Inder. Similar is the statement of claimant Narendra Singh. He has admitted the said fact in his cross-examination. No evidence to the contrary has been adduced by the insurer. No witness was examined by the insurer in rebuttal of the owners' evidence. Thus, we find that tractor-trolley was owned by Inder, an agriculturist. In addition, he owned a brick kiln. At the time of accident bricks were being transported to the agricultural land, which was taken by him on crop sharing basis from Pyara Singh, it has not been disputed and rightly held that bricks were transported to the agricultural land for the purpose of construction of the shed at the relevant time. It is also clear that the premium was realised by the insurer for tractor-trolley for third party claims. It has been stated that claimant was travelling in the tractor-trolley, for the purpose of construction of the shed in the agricultural land though it was mentioned in the claim petition that he was asked to show the agricultural land owned by Pyara Singh consequently he boarded tractor and met with accident, he received injuries. Whatever that may be, as the tractor-trolley was used for the purpose connected with agriculture, it cannot be said on facts of the case that the tractor-trolley was used for commercial purposes at the relevant time when the accident had taken place. The insurer cannot escape the liability from making the payment of compensation. Thus, we find that driver, owner and insurer are liable jointly and severally to make the payment of compensation.
11. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, it is not in dispute that the claimant Narendra Singh has suffered disability to the extent of 100 per cent. He has suffered paralysis of both limbs below waist level. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the disability to the extent of 100 per cent has been incurred. Age of claimant has been found to be 40 years. Coming to his monthly income, it has been stated by him that he was doing the work of a skilled mason and used to earn Rs. 60 to Rs. 70 per day. In addition, he owned some agricultural land and was having the income from the same. Thus, we assess his income to be Rs. 2,400 per month. His annual income comes to Rs. 2,400 x 12 = Rs. 28,800. Looking to his 40 years of age, the appropriate multiplier of 16 is applicable under the circumstances. Thus, total loss on account of permanent disability of 100 per cent comes to Rs. 28,800 x 16 = Rs. 4,60,800. In addition, claimant is entitled for Rs. 1,00,000 on account of medical expenditure, Rs. 50,000 for physical pain and mental suffering and Rs. 25,000 for future treatment is awarded to claimant Narendra Singh. Thus, it would make a total of Rs. 6,35,800 to be paid to claimant Narendra Singh by the owner, driver and insurer jointly and severally.
12. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their costs as incurred.