Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju vs Sardar Singh And Anr. on 5 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2005)ACC138
Author: S.K. Gangele
Bench: S.K. Gangele
JUDGMENT S.K. Gangele, J.
1. This is claimant appeal against the award dated 22.10.2001 passed by the Additional M.A.C.T., Ujjain in Claim Case No. 115/01.
2. On 21.6.2000 at around 11 o'clock in the morning the appellant was going on his bicycle from Kushalpura to Mahakal temple, Ujjain. He was dashed by the tractor driven rashly and negligently by the driver. As a result of the accident he sustained fracture in his tibia and fibula bone and admitted in the hospital upto 13.7.2000 and was also operated. He was under plaster cover for a period of two months. He claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
3. The learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the tractor are liable for payment of compensation to the appellant and awarded compensation of Rs. 14,500/-, Rs. 10,000/- for the injuries, Rs. 3,000/- for attendant and Rs. 1,500/- for medical bills. It also held that it is not proved that the accident was caused by the vehicle mentioned by the appellant in the claim application and dismissed the application.
4. The learned Claims Tribunal further held that because the number of the tractor was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and the tractor was seized after a period of six days, hence it has not been proved that the accident was caused by the tractor in question.
5. It is clear from the fact that the accident took place on 21.6.2000 and the report was lodged on 22.6.2000. However, in the report the number of the tractor has not been mentioned. However, subsequently the police made investigation and the tractor in question has been seized and it has also been released on Superdginama to the owner. It has clearly been mentioned by the appellant in this evidence that the tractor was driven by the owner Sardar Singh and he tried to run away from the spot and he was caught by the mob. From the above evidence it is clear that the tractor which is being owned by the owner Sardar Singh has caused the accident, the same fact has been completely ignored by the Claims Tribunal. Hence, I am of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal are perverse. It has clearly been held that the respondent No. 1 has caused the accident by his tractor and the owner and Insurance Company are liable for payment of compensation.
6. With regard to quantum it is clear from the evidence Dr. MP. Sharma, who was posted as Assistant Surgeon in the District Hospital, that there was a fracture in the tibia and fibula bone of the leg of the appellant and he also received injuries on his left wrist. He was under plaster cover for a period of two months and could not work for a period of three months. In above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to grant Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of income when he was under treatment. Consequently, award of the Tribunal of Rs. 14,500/- is enhanced by Rs. 20,000/- and the claimant will get total compensation of Rs. 34,500/-.
7. On the basis of above discussion, appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. The appellant will get total compensation of Rs. 34,500/- from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Finding of exoneration of the respondents from liability to pay compensation is hereby set aside. The appellant is entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 34,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.