Orissa High Court
Orissa State Road Trans. Corp. vs Bhanu Prakash Joshi on 6 August, 1993
Equivalent citations: I(1994)ACC467
Author: A. Pasayat
Bench: A. Pasayat
JUDGMENT A. Pasayat, J.
1. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') calls in question legality of the judgment passed by the first Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kalahandi Bhawanipatna (in short, the 'Tribunal') awarding a sum of Rs. 1,48,000/- to a Bhanu Prakash Joshi (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') as compensation.
2. Sans unnecessary details, the factual background is as follows:
A claim was lodged under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the 'old Act') by the claimant alleging that he sustained serious injuries on account of an accident wherein two vehicles bearing registration. Nos. OUR 3225 and ORR 2667 were involved. It was stated that both the vehicles belonged to the Corporation. He claimed to have sustained injuries on 9.8.1983 while travelling in bus No. OUR 3225 from Nawapara to Komana as a passenger. At the place of accident the road was curved. The other bus bearing registration No. ORR 2667, was coming from the opposite direction. Since both the buses were driven at a high speed, the drivers of the vehicles lost control and there was a head on collision as a result of which many passengers including the claimant were seriously injured. The claimant suffered compound fractures and serious lacerations which caused profuse bleeding and he lost his senses at the spot. He was removed to Nawapara Subdivisitional Hospital for preliminary treatment. As his condition was serious, he was later on removed to C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. He claimed that he was a member of the Orissa Legislative Assambly and was sure of a bright political career. On account of the accident he was rendered immobile and therefore, is entitled to compensation. A total claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- was made. The Corporation objected to the claim. Two witnesses were examined to buttress the claimant's claim. The Tribunal on assessment of the evidence came to hold that the claimant was emitted to Rs. 1,48,000/-.
3. It is necessary to set out the amounts claimed and awarded under different heads by the claimant and the Tribunal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.No. Nature of the claim Amount claimed Amount awarded
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Expenses for medicines
including attendant,
cost of special diet Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
and conveyance
(2) Loss of income from
August. 1983 to July, 1987 Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
(3) Loss of future income Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 70,000/-
(4) Pain, shock and
mental agony Rs. 28,000/- Rs. 28,000/-
(5) Loss of career due
to accident Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quantification has been characterised as perverse and to be the result of non-application of mind by the Tribunal in this regard. The claimant, however, supported the award.
4. I find it strange that the Tribunal did not even discusses as to what is the basis of its coming to the conclusion about entitlement of the claimant under different heads. It has come to an abrupt conclusion that the loss of future income on account of fracture of the leg was Rs. 70,000/-. It is necessary to refer to the evidence led by the claimant for such claimed loss. Not even an itoa of evidence was placed before the Tribunal that there was possibility of loss of future income. In fact in cross-examination the claimant has himself admitted as follows:
I was an active politician. I contested in the last Assembly Election from Nawapara constituency against the sitting member of the Assembly from Nawapara constituency.
Additionally in para, 13, he admitted as follows:
I have no document at present to show that I was getting Rs. 1500/- per month. I have not mentioned in the petition about the earnings from cultivation. I have not mentioned in the claim petition about the claim of compensation due to loss of career. I have no document to show that I was writing stories.
Subsequent to the accident the claimant has fought an election. He has not placed any material to show as to how there was loss of future income, and the source thereof. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding Rs. 70,000/- for loss of future income. Interestingly Nrupti Baghel examined as P.W. 2 has stated in his cross-examination as follows:
The petitioner was MLA of Congress I. In the present election of Assembly constituency of Nawapara I was supporting the present sitting MLA. The petitioner was campaigning and was moving in the election.
This itself shows that the plea that there was loss of mobility is a myth.
Similarly for loss of income from August, 1983 to July, 1987, no material has been placed. The claimant in his examination-in-chief has stated that he was getting Rs. 1500/- per month as MLA and prior to that he was cultivating ancestral lands and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per annum from the same. He stated that he was writing short stories and giving the same for publication to different magazines and by that he was earning Rs. 1500/- per month, and that he could not write short stories after the accident due to mental and physical agony. According to him, due to injuries he was advised to take rest and therefore, he was not given ticket for contesting the Assembly Election. As indicated above, he has himself accepted that he was contesting the Assembly Election. It is strange that without a scrap of paper in order to substantiate the claim, and even without an iota of evidence, the Tribunal thought it proper to award huge sum as compensation. There is substance in the plea of the Corporation that the award is outcome of non-application of mind by the Tribunal. It is, therefore, a fit came which should be re-adjudicated by the Tribunal. The award is accordingly set aside and the Tribunal is directed to re-adjudicate and indicate reasons and basis for awarding in any particular amount in respect of a particular claim. To avoid unnecessary delay, the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 6th September, 1993, without any further notice.
The miscellaneous appeal is accordingly disposed of.