Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Pushpa Bai vs Anil & Ors on 18 August, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 18th OF AUGUST, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 1640 of 2001
Between:-
KU. PUSHPA BAI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF PARSU @ PARASRAM, S/O
KASHIRAM, CASTE KIRAD, R/O PARMANDAL,
P.S. AND TAHSIL MULTAI, DISTRICT BETUL,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SAURABH TIWARI - ADVOCATE, IS ABSENT )
AND
1. ANIL, SON OF SATYA NARAYAN CASTE
BRAHMAN, R/O E/7, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL
(DRIVER) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GENERAL MANAGER MP STATE ROAD
CORPORATION HABIBGANJ, HEAD OFFICE,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MP STATE ROAD
TRASPORT CORPORATION BAIRAGARH,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
None for respondents, though their names are appearing in the cause list. This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved of the award dated Signature Not Verified SAN 06.10.2001, passedby learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Multai, Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.08.18 18:28:59 IST District Betul in M.V.C.No.03/99, awarding only a sum of Rs.65,000/- on 2 account of an accident which took place on 15.10.1998 at about 11:30 A.M. when claimant was travelling on a bicycle along with her uncle Mahesh from Village Parmandal to Multai, to attend her school, when on Betul road close to the milk dairy, a M.P. State Road Transport Corporation bus, bearing registration No.MP-04-H/7069, being driven by Anil in a rash and negligent manner had hit the bicycle of Mahesh. As a result, Mahesh was thrown away and claimant Pushpa Bai suffered grievous injuries, as a result of which she had fallen unconscious.
2. It is mentioned in the memo of appeal and as is apparent from the impugned award that after preliminary first aid at Multai Hospital, she was shifted to Nagpur Medical College, where she was treated from 15.10.1998 to 12.11.1998 as an indoor patient. On 23.11.1998, she was again admitted in Primary Health Center Multai. The case against the driver of the bus was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code.
3. Tribunal has recorded a finding of negligence on the part of the bus driver in causing the accident and this finding has remained unrebutted. As far as nature of injuries are concerned, it has come on record that she lost vision in her right eye. Dr. P.K. Tiwari, gave his report Ex.A/3 and was examined as PW/6, where he informed that there was haemotoma on the left hand side of the injured, causing paralysis on the right hand side body of the claimant and there is also reduction in her right eye sight. Discharge certificate is Ex.A/4 and in cross-examination, this doctor admitted that the injuries sustained by the claimant were grievous in nature.
4. Dr. Shrikant Gatkari from Nagpur (PW/5) was also examined before the Signature Not Verified SAN Tribunal and he admitted that there was reduction in hearing and verbal ability of Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.08.18 18:28:59 IST the claimant so also decrease in comprehension. PW/7 Dr. Yogesh Gadekar, 3 gave disability certificate Ex.A/5 and clearly mentioned that claimant suffered paralysis in right side of her body and there is 70% permanent disability caused to the claimant.
5. Despite recording this evidence, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as general damages, Rs.10,000/- under the head of treatment, Rs.5,000/- under the head of nutritious diet and another Rs.5,000/- under the head of transport, besides Rs.20,000/- for pain and sufferings.
6. I have perused the record so also the evidence of doctors P.K. Tiwari, Dr. Shrikant Gatkari and Dr. Yogesh Gadhekar. After perusing the evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation which is meager and on lower side.
7. Instead of remitting the matter to the Tribunal and taking into consideration that long 21 years time has lapsed, this Court proposes to decide the appeal on its own merit looking to the established principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. It is not in dispute that age of claimant at the time of the accident was 17 years. It is also not in dispute that date of accident is 15.10.1998. It is also not in dispute that claimant was a student and was going to attend her school. In view of such facts, claimant can be considered to be a skilled labourer and wages for a skilled labourer on the date of accident were to the tune of Rs.1855/- per month or Rs.22,260/- per annum. There is evidence on record that claimant sustained paralysis of right hand side body, resulting in 70% disability as is certified by Dr. Yogesh Gadhekar (PW/7). There is no challenge Signature Not Verified SAN to the said certificate. Therefore, loss of income potential to earn will be Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI 15,582/- per annum, over and above which 40% is to be added towards the Date: 2022.08.18 18:28:59 IST 4 future prospects. Multiplier of 18 will be applicable in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. Thus, claimant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,92,666/- (Rupees Three Lakhs, Ninety Two Thousand, Six Hundred Sixty Six) under the head of loss of income. In addition, she will be entitled to a sum of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand) as has been awarded by learned Claims Tribunal.
9. Thus, claimant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,57,666/- (Rupees Four Lakhs, Fifty Seven Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Six) against a sum of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand) awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, there will be an addition to the tune of Rs.3,92,666/- (Rupees Three Lakhs, Ninety Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Six) to which claimant will be entitled to recover from the erstwhile M.P. State Road Transport Corporation or its successor and the driver of the vehicle jointly and severally.
10. In the above terms, appeal stands disposed off.
11. Let record of the Tribunal be sent back.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the claimant as well as to the Principal Secretary, Transport, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, who is now custodian of erstwhile M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, to comply with the order.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) Signature Not Verified JUDGE SAN A.Praj.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.08.18 18:28:59 IST