Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. vs Sitabai And Ors. on 10 July, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993ACJ940
JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J.
1. This Misc. Appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award dated 28.9.1983 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shajapur, in Claim Case No. 13 of 1982.
2. The facts in brief are that the bus bearing registration No. MPC 7393 was owned by the appellant and on the date of accident it was driven by its driver Shafi Ahamad, respondent No. 7. On 3.8.1982, deceased Moolchand was going on his cycle from Maxi towards Shajapur. He was knocked down by the aforesaid bus and eventually lost his life. The bus was driven rashly and negligently by the aforesaid driver during the course of employment with the appellant. The appellant resisted the claim and pleaded its impeccability. The learned Tribunal, on evaluation of evidence, awarded the compensation of Rs. 40,500/- together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i.e., 1.10.1982 till realisation against the appellant and respondent No. 7. Aggrieved by this award, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. I have heard Mr. Dhupar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sujan Jain, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. None appeared for respondent No. 7.
4. Mr. Dhupar has submitted that the findings of the Tribunal are not supportable on evidence and in any case, the amount awarded is rather excessive. On the other hand, Mr. Sujan Jain supported the award and contended that in the face of loss of precious life, the award cannot be categorised as excessive. He, therefore, urged that this appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs.
5. The Tribunal evaluated the evidence and found that the driver drove the bus rashly and negligently and did not care for others who had similar right to use road. The Tribunal also held that the bus knocked down the deceased Moolchand as a result of which he died. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident. His earning was assessed at Rs. 260/- per month. These findings are found to be on firm foundation and do not merit any interference. The learned counsel was unable to point out any infirmity or illegality in either approach or in eventual conclusion reached by the Tribunal. These findings are, therefore, maintained.
6. As regards estimate of compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the dependability of the legal representatives on the deceased extended to Rs. 225/- per month, i.e., Rs. 2,700/- per annum. The Tribunal applied to this the multiplier of 15 and held that compensation of Rs. 40,500/- would be just and reasonable. This approach or quantum cannot be faulted with. In my view, this is quite just and reasonable and as such is not liable to be interfered with.
7. In the ultimate analysis, I find that this appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
8. Parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs as incurred. The record of the Tribunal is directed to be returned immediately.