Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Kavindra Prasad Dixit And Anr. on 8 April, 1994
Equivalent citations: II(1995)ACC428
JUDGMENT T.S. Doabia, J.
1. Shri Kavindra Prasad Dixit, a progressive fanner who has also training in law was travelling by a bus owned by M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Gwalior. On 12th of January, 1986 at about 12.30 p.m, this bus struck against a culvert. The claimant-respondent who was sitting on the front seat sustained injuries. In his claim petition, he stated that he "along with his seat was thrown ahead like a fast spinning cricket ball in the air and struck and rolled against the left road patri about 25 to 30 paces ahead of the bus". According to the claimant, the woolen coat and polyester trousers which he was wearing were torn; injuries were caused all over the body. He further stated that there was non-stop bleeding from forehead and cheek. According to him, he sustained shock as well. It is also his grievance that no first-aid arrangement existed in the bus and he managed to reach the hospital at Itawah by boarding of a petrol tanker.
2. The claimant was in the hospital for first-aid treatment and reached his house the same day. He further stated that he was unable to sit, stand or move for a period often days. It was only when he was in a position to move around that he lodged a complaint regarding this incident with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhind and also sent a notice to the Regional Manager of the appellant-Roadways. This was done by him on 21st of January, 1986. It was the assertion of the claimant that he was bed-ridden for a period of one month and on account of the after-effects of the accident, he was unable to move and work for quite sometime and this adversely affected his farming activity. He stated in his claim petition that he has lost original vigour, stamina and capacity to work. The applicant also stated in his petition that there was serious disfiguration of the face inasmuch as a scar on his forehead and on his left cheek has been caused. He also claimed damages sustained to the property which is said to be one steel tiffen, one woolen comforter and a plastic bucket. The monthly income of the applicant was stated to be Rs. 10,000/- and this was primarily from his agricultural farm which was devoted to seed production. He claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs.
3. The matter was put to trial. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant/respondent did suffer injuries in the accident on account of the rash and negligent driving, of the driver of the bus owned by the appellant. The Tribunal fixed the income of the claimant at Rs. 87,614/- per annum. Taking this figure into consideration, he came to the conclusion that the loss sustained by the claimant was to the extent of Rs. 22,000/- per year. As the claimant was of 55 years of age, a multiplier of five was applied and a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- was fixed as the compensation. 15% cut was composed and claimant was to get Rs. 93,000/-.
4. The M.P. State Road Transport Corporation has come in appeal. The basic contention is that of injuries sustained by the claimant were simple in nature and there is no evidence that the injuries sustained were grievous or that there was any permanent disability. As such, the award of compensation at Rs. 93,000/- was described as exorbitant.
5. We have gone through the file and also noticed the injuries sustained by the claimant/respondent. He was in the hospital for a day only. He has stated that he was getting treatment in his house and private Doctors some of whom were his relations were attending him for quite sometime. We have no doubt in our mind that the claimant must have suffered a serious shock as he was sitting on the front seat. He must have borne all the impact of the accident. We have also no reason to doubt the statement of the claimant that he was unable to attend to his work for about one month as he was confined to the bed. However, this was not a justifiable reason for the grant of compensation at the amount fixed by the Tribunal. Nothing has been brought on the record that the claimant had to engage some extra labour to look after his farming activities. Even if the statement of the claimant is taken at its face value with regard to the injuries sustained by him or to the period of his confinement after the accident, the conclusion is unescapable that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. There is nothing on record to indicate that any permanent disability has been caused to the claimant/respondent.
6. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, that is, the stock sustained by him, the period of confinement, the treatment the claimant was getting from the private Doctors and his relations, the pain and suffering which he must have undergone for a period of one month or so, we think that the ends of justice would clearly be met if compensation is granted to him to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-. This would include the loss caused to immovable property which was with the claimant at the time of the accident. The appeal of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation is allowed, the award given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified. The quantum of compensation is reduced and is fixed at Rs. 15,000/- in all. There would be no order as to the costs.