Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Asadkhan And Anr. on 8 July, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1(1994)ACC78
JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J.
1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M. A. No. 77/84 (Jagdish v. Asadkhan and Ors.) filed by respondent No. 2 against the same award.
2. The aforesaid appeal, preferred under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is directed against the award dated 23.11.83 passed by the Member (Third) Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 135/81 thereby granting the award of Rs. 20,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from 26.6.81 till realisation.
3. The aforesaid award was passed against the State of M.P., Joint Director, Veterinary Services and the driver Jagdish. Aggrieved by this award, the State of M.P. and Joint Director of Veterinary Services, Mhow have filed the Misc. Appeal No. 81/84 whereas Jagdish has filed the Misc. Appeal No. 77/84. Both these appeals being connected matters, were heard together.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimant Asadkhan was driver of tempo bearing registration No. MPO-3047. The jeep bearing registration No. MPZ-4318 involved in the accident was owned by the State of M.P., and at the relevant time was in the custody of the Joint Director, Veterinary services Mhow. On 15.3.1981, the claimant (Asadkhan) drove the aforesaid tempo from Mhow to Indore. Near Rasalpura, the driver Jagdish brought the aforesaid jeep, driving it rashly and negligently and dashed it against the tempo as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The claimant presented the claim petition on 26.6.1981, Claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The other side resisted the claim and pleaded that no fault can be attributed against it. On evaluation or evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation as noted above. The appeals have been filed as particularised above.
5. I have heard Shri V.K. Dube, learned Government Advocate and Shri N.K. Maheshwari Advocate and have perused the record. None appeared for the claimant.
6. The questions involved in the-sea appeals for determination are-
(a) Whether the liability has been correctly foisted on the appellants of both the appeals.?
(b) Whether the quantum of award is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.?
7. As regards the first point about liability, the Tribunal found that the accident occured due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep and Jagdesh is responsible for the said Act. I have scrutinised the entire material and find that this finding is on firm foundation and cannot be faulted with. Equally firm is the finding that the claimant sustained partial disability. This finding again is well supported from the evidence adduced by the parties. Accordingly, there is no infirmity or illegality in reaching this finding. It is thus, found that the first contention raised by the appellants is without merit and the liability has been correctly foisted on them.
8. As regards the estimate of damages, I find from para 13 of the impugned award that the Tribunal did not particularise as to how the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was held to just and reasonable Compensation. Even the claim petition did not give any details as to how the compensation was sought All that the Tribunal has recorded is that "interest of justice demands that the claimant should get Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by him, their treatment, diet and physical and mental shock from the non-applicants No. 1 to 3." This contains no clue as to how this figure was reached. It is for this reason that I went through the evidence led by the parties. It is found that the claimant was hospitalised for eight days. He was a tempo driver. His income has been assessed as Rs. 300/- per month. PW-2 Asadkhan has deposed (para 5) that he spent about 3,500/- in his medical treatment and diet. As regards the injuries, the medical evidence has been produced in this case, PW-4 Dr. V.K. Taorey has proved the injuries. He has stated that the "claimant Asadkhan has a flaction contracture of index and middle fingers of his right hand." He has also opined that his deficiency caused by the injuries sustained in the accident would given rise to the difficulty in holding any article. However, he deposed that this deformity can be corrected by operation to be performed by a Plastic Surgeon. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the claimant suffered partial disability.
9. This finding is legal and proper.
10. In 1970 ACJ 189 (Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Ved Mitra), this Court laid down the principles for award of damages in the case of personal injuries suffered by accident as under-
(a) The amount of compensation must be reasonable and needs to be assessed with moderation.
(b) the quantification should be with due regard to comparable cases.
(c) The level should, to a considerable extent, be conventional.
11. Tested on the aforesaid principles, I find that the award is unjust and deserves to be suitably modified.
12. The Act is benevolent legislation and its avowed object is to compensate the victim properly. Being a welfare legislation, its intendment ought to be kept in mind.
13. Applying the aforesaid principles of law to the facts as found proved in the instant case. I find that the amount of Rs. 11,500/- built-up as under would be just and reasonable compensation:
Rs. 500/- towards less of income. Rs. 3,500/- towards medical treatment and diet. Rs. 7,500/- towards general damages. ----------- Rs. 11,500/- Total. -----------
14. In the analysis as aforesaid, I find that the Tribunal went wrong in awarding the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- without due application of mind and without requisite discussion in this behalf. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellants shall pay jointly and severally to the claimant an amount of Rs. 11,500/- as compensation instead of Rs. 20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
15. As regards the award of interest; I find that the level of 6% per annum is demonstrably very low. I therefore, find that there is enough justification to enhance the same, In the face of marked visibility of devaluation. Can any one look upon a rupee as a rupee.? There is mountainous devaluation and the value of the rupee is dropped to cavernous depth. The minimum level is now 12% per annum. It is, therefore, just and proper to enhance the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 12% per annum.
16. Consequently, the appeals are allowed in part. The award is altered asabove. The appellants shall now pay the compensation of only Rs. 11,500/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application i.e. 26.6.81 till realisation. The direction with regard to the costs remains unaltared. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs as incurred in these appeals.
17. The records of the Tribunal are directed to be returned immediately.
18. Let a copy of this order be placed in the file of Misc. Appeals No. 77/84 (Jagdish v. Asad Khan and Ors.).