Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. State Road Tranport Corporation vs Dr. Kashi Prashad Yadav And Anr. on 4 August, 1988
Equivalent citations: II(1989)ACC183
JUDGMENT B.C. Varma, J.
1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation challenging the award made by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Bhopal. Respondent Dr. Kashi Prasad Yadav has also filed cross objection for enhancement of the compensation so awarded. This order shall dispose of appeal as also the cross-objection.
2. Facts are that on 12-9-1977 at about 3-45 P.M. Dr. Yadav sitting on the pillion of a scooter driven by his colleague Dr. Suresh Naik emerged from General Post Office, Bhopal. While entering the road and before negotiating the curve ahead on the Sultania Road, it dashed against passenger bus No. M.P.V. 8039, belonging to the appellant Corporation and driven by respondent Mohammad Asgar Ali who was employed in the appellant Corporation. At the relevant time Mohammad Asgar Ali was employed as a mechanic but was not a regular driver. As a result of the impact, Dr. Yadav and Dr. Nair were thrown away. They sustained injuries and were immediately admitted in the hospital. Dr. Nair died five days later but Dr. Yadav survived. Dr. Yadav sustained injuries including fractures of tibia and febula of right leg besides a head injury. He was operated upon for these fractures and had to remain indoor patient in the hospital from 12-9-1976 to 26-4-1978 and again from 1-6-1979 to 25 6-1979. Alleging that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent Asgar ail, Dr. Yadav claimed a sum of Rs. 1,47,000/- as compensation against different heads. This claim was resisted by the Corporation and Asgar Ali who attributed negligence to the scooter driver Dr. Nair and pleaded that the bus was driven cautiously on the main road and immediately after the scooter driven rashly and negligently by Dr. Nair dashed against the bus. The quantum of compensation was also denied. During the trial, apart from oral evidence, certain photo graphs of the spot were also introduced. The learned claims Tribunal found driver of the bus Mohammad As agar Ali as also Dr. Nair negligent in driving their respective vehicles. However, the contributory negligence has been fixed in the ratio of 80: 20 between the bus driver and the scooter driver. A sum of Rs. 22,000/- has been assessed as compensation and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 17,600/- has been directed to be paid by the appellant and Mohammad Asagar Ali to Dr. Yadav being 80 per cent of the total amount assessed. It may be mentioned that the claims Tribunal has also awarded interest on this amount at the rate of six per cent per annum and in the cross-objection while claiming enhancement of the compensation amount, Dr. Yadav has also claimed interest at 12 per cent per annum.
3. One thing, which draws immediate attention in the present case in the place where the accident took place. It was a main road on which the bus was being driven. One can always witness a very heavy traffic on that road and there is always a possibility of vehicle emerging from the General Post Office and the Central Telegraph Office adjoining it and coming on the main road. The curve ahead is also significant. Ordinarily, therefore, the bus drivers have to be a little more cautious when entering the spot. The speed has to be slowed down considerably and the possibility of dashing against vehicles emerging from the Post Office and Telegraph Office has always to be borne in mind. The second noticeable feature in the case is that at the relevant time the bus was being driven not by a regular driver but was driven by a mechanic, who as is now clear from the evidence, had no regular driving license. Asgar Ali mechanic could not shown to have possessed any driving license at all. Driving of a bus carrying passengers on a busy high way by a person not trained in driving and not possessing any driving license by itself shows the negligence in the matter of the driving of the vehicle. The claims Tribunal while holding the driver Asgar Ali negligent in driving the bus has taken into consideration these factors It may be added that since the bus was driven on the main road and the scooter came from the General Post Office and was within the sight of the driver, the driver had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident. At the same time, the Tribunal has also rightly held the scooter driver negligent. The bus being driven on the main road had a prior right to pass and, therefore, the scooter driver should have waited to see that the bus had gone ahead before he entered the main road. He failed to observe this rule and, therefore, must also be held negligent. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held both the drivers negligent while driving the respective vehicles. In these circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal while apportioning the ratio of the contributory negligence as 80:20 between the bus driver and the scooter driver cannot be held to be unreasonable or unjust calling for interference in this appeal. That finding is maintained.
4. We also do not feel that the award of compensation is in any way unjust except that the interest awarded should be enhanced to Rs. 12 per cent per annum from 6 per cent per annum. Dr. Yadav claimed certain amount as pecuniary damages under different heads. In the cross-objection, prayer is for allowing the entire claim made in the petition. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was claimed on account of special diet. The finding of the Tribunal is that sufficient diet was supplied to Dr. Yadav by the hospital authorities free of costs. Even so a sum of Rs. 1000/- has been awarded on that count which, in our opinion, is very just. Since the entire medical treatment in the hospital was free of costs and best medicines were supplied to Dr. Yadav by the hospital itself without any cost, the Tribunal committed no error in not allowing any amount on the count. No exception can be taken to that finding.
5. Against non-pecuniary claim a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was claimed for permanent and partial disability suffered by Dr. Yadav as a result of the injuries sustained by him in that accident. Dr. O.P. Mishra has been examined to prove the injuries and the results. It was claimed that the fracture has reduced the length of leg by an inch and a half. The Tribunal, however, has rightly found that neither the evidence of Dr. O.P. Mishra nor the documents on record prove this shortening of leg. All the same, it has rightly been found that there is some deformity and only limping of the leg may be noticed. Dr. Mishra has also opined that Dr. Yadav shall have been able to conduct his daily pursuit and hospital duties us usual. It has, however, been claimed that Dr. Yadav had applied for Military Services but because of the injury, he could not go ahead to secure that assignment. Apart from this, Dr Mishra has also opined that Dr. Yadav shall suffer from strain in ankle joint. For all these reasons, a sum of Rs. 5000/- has been awarded on this count which, in our opinion, is quite jurt and should not be interfered within this appeal. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- for bodily pain and suffering and Rs. 3,000/- for mental shock has been awarded which too is quite just and reasonable under the circumstances of the case. There has been no loss of salary and no reduction of chances of promotion. The Tribunal rightly, therefore, did not allow any compensation under this head. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- has also been awarded to compensate loss of amenities in life. The Tribunal has thoroughly discussed the entire evidence on record and has taken into account all probabilities and the award of compensation, therefore, is absolutely just. Sri Issrani placed before the Court for consideration certain decided cases where compensation for injuries has been awarded at a little higher rate ranging between Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 50,000/-. We have gone through those decisions and we are of the opinion that they do not lay down any different principles of assessment than those, which have been taken into account while awarding compensation to Dr. Yadav. In those cases, the amount of compensation has been arrived at a particular figure in view of circumstances of each case.
6. The Tribunal has awarded interest at six per cent per annum. That, in our opinion, is low. It is now usual to award interest at 12 per cent per annum. The Supreme Court has also been awarding interest at this rate. It will, therefore, be just to enhance the rate of interest to 12 per cent per annum. To this extent only the cross-objection succeeds and the award of the Tribunal shall be modified.
7. But for the aforesaid modification enhancing the rate of interest to 12 per cent per annum against six percent per annum as awarded by the claims Tribunal, the appeal as also the cross-objection are dismissed but without any order as to costs.