Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Virendra Kumar Singh on 9 December, 1987
Equivalent citations: I(1988)ACC453
JUDGMENT B.M. Lall, J.
1. This order shall also govern the disposal of the Cross-Objection filed by the Respondent for enhancement of the Award.
2. This appeal is directed against the award dated 2412-1984 whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Seoni (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has granted compensation to the Respondent to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation.
3. The Respondent/claimant filed a Claim Petition for damages amounting to Rs. 50,000/- towards bodily pain. He also claimed loss of earning and for his sufferings on account of the accident. His case is that on 31-12-1981 when he was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant it met with an accident dashing against a standing truck and in the said accident he sustained multiple injuries on his person. It is alleged that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. The respondent was admitted in the hospital on 1-1-1982 and he remained there for seven days. On medical examination grievous injury like fracture was found besides lacerated wounds on the body. He, therefore, pleaded that on account of the injury caused to him in the said accident he suffered bodily pain, nervous shock affecting his future earning. Therefore he filed the, claim of Rs. 50,000/-.
4. The appellant while repudiating the claim of the respondent merged with the as usual pleading that the bus was not driven rashly or negligently and the claimant/respondent had not sustained any injury as alleged by him. The Claims Tribunal however awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/-with interest as referred to above.
5. Learned Counsel Shri P.R. Bhave appearing for the appellant strenuously argued that no case for award is made out and the Claims Tribunal has committed error of law besides mis-reading and mis-apprehending the evidence on record, in awarding huge sum of compensation in favour of the respondent, He submitted, though there is a finding that the respondent sustained a permanent loss to the tune of Rs. 100/- per month vide para 25 of the award but this finding is not supported by any evidence on record, and as such the entire award has to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Ku Chanchal Sharma learned Counsel appearing for the respondent while supporting the findings of the Tribunal submitted that the Tribunal has applied a wrong multiplier while passing the award, with the result the impugned award suffers from insufficiency and therefore, the same is liable to be enhanced.
7. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned Counsel and perusing the record, I have reached the conclusion that while dismissing the appeal the cross-objection deserves to be allowed.
8. AW 1, Dr. M.M. Trivedi had examined the claimant/respondent and found nasal bone fracture. He also found lacerated wounds. Because of the said injuries the claimant had to suffer loss. AW 3 Virendra Kumar Singh who was a co-passenger in the bus has stated that the bus was driven by Sheikh Ahmad rashly and negligently. He supports the statement of the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly reached the conclusion that the claimant was a bonafide passenger in that bus. This witness Virendra Kumar has supported the version of the claimant on all the issues. Learned Counsel Shri Bhave could not point out any infirmity in his version so as to disbelive this AW 3.
9. However, Shri Bhave contended that for want of impleading the driver in the array of the respondents, the claim petition is not maintainable. But it has been given on record that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver Sheikh Ahmad who lost his life in the said accident itself, and therefore, the question of impleading him as a party in the clam petition does not arise.
10. Thus from the discussions aforesaid the appeal has no force and it deserves to be dismissed.
11. As regards cross-objection, there is a finding vide para 25 of the impugned award that on account of the said accident the claimant/respondent has sustained a permanent loss of wages to the tune of Rs. 100/- per month, and regarding his age the tribunal has assessed the age of the claimant 30 years. Longevity of an average man has been held to be 75 years in numerous cases by the Apex Court of the land. However, the claimant/respondent, being a driver by profession would have continued to get driving allowance upto the age of 60 years, Therefore in the given circumstances of the instant case, the multiplier would be Rs. 100 x 12 x 30 years and the Claims Tribunal ought to have passed an award for Rs. 36,000/- instead of Rs. 18,000/-towards permanent loss of his earning capacity by applying the multiplier stated above.
12. This being so, the award impugned is modified as under:
Towards permanent loss of earning Rs. 36,000/-
Towards General damages .... Rs. 2,000/-
__________
Rs. 38,000/-
Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, as such, the impugned award is enhanced by Rs. 18,000/-. This total sum of Rs. 38,000/-shall also carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till realisation.
13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs and the cross objection is allowed to the extent indicated above. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/- if certified.
Appeal dismissed. Cross objections allowed.