Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. D. Mulye and V. D. Gyani, JJ.
SHABBIR AHMAD - Appellant
Versus
M.P.S.R.T.C., BHOPAL - Respondents
Misc. Appeal 11 Of 1982
Decided On : 07/31/1984
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 110-D - COMPENSATION - AWARD - NEGLIGENCE - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - CRIMINAL COURT JUDGMENT - SPOT MAP - IMPROBABILITY OF TESTIMONY - IMPROVEMENT IN TESTIMONY - SPEED OF BUS - INCOME OF DECEASED - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
A passenger bus driven by respondent 3 collided with a cyclist, Salim Ahmed, resulting in his death. The appellants, Salim Ahmed's parents, filed a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' claim, finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Salim Ahmed. The High Court reversed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the accident was caused by the negligence of the bus driver.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the bus driver or the cyclist. 2. Whether the evidence of a witness who was at a distance from the accident should be disregarded. 3. Whether the acquittal of the bus driver in a criminal case is conclusive evidence of his lack of negligence. 4. Whether the speed of the bus was excessive. 5. Whether the income of the deceased cyclist should be considered in determining the quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the evidence of the bus driver was unreliable due to an improvement in his testimony and the failure to produce the Tekograph, a device that records the speed of the bus. 2. The High Court held that the evidence of a witness who was at a distance from the accident should not be disregarded solely on that basis. 3. The High Court held that the acquittal of the bus driver in a criminal case is not conclusive evidence of his lack of negligence in a civil claim. 4. The High Court held that the speed of the bus was excessive based on the evidence that the road was clear and the village was in sight. 5. The High Court held that the income of the deceased cyclist should be considered in determining the quantum of compensation, taking into account his age, academic attainments, and the status of his family.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and awarded compensation of Rs. 12,000/- to the appellants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the appellants, who are parents of the deceased Salim Ahmed. It arises out of an award dt. 30-9-1981, given by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua, in Claim Case No. 8 of 1980.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that on 6-5-1980, by about 6. 30 p. m. a passenger-bus No. CPH-8567, belonging to the respondent 1 was coming from Ahmedabad to Indore. It was being driven by respondent 3 Nisar Ahmed. The bus had left Jhabua and was nearing village Kalidevi, which is situated on the highway at a distance of about 20 Kms from Jhabua on Ahmedabad Indore Road. The appellants' case is that the respondent 3 was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Salim Ahmed, a boy aged about 15 years, was coming on a bicycle from Kalidevi. The bus dashed against the boy from the front side, as a result of which Salim Ahmed died on the spot. According to the appellants the bus was being driven at such an excessive speed that it could only be stopped at a distance of about 20 meters from the place of the accident.
( 3 ) THE appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 1,25,400/- for the loss of income, mental agony and the price of the bicycle, which was also totally damaged.
( 4 ) IT is not disputed by the respondents that the bus was being driven by Nisar Ahmed (respondent 3 ). It is also not in dispute that Salim Ahmed died on the spot. However, the respondents have denied that the driver was either rash or negligent in driving the bus. They have pleaded that Salim Ahmed was coming on a bicycle along with another boy. Seeing them from a distance the respondent 3 the driver blew the horn. On hearing its sound the respondents have further pleaded that the two boys moved in two different directions. One of them got down from the bicycle and stood on the right hand side of the road, while the other, the deceased Salim Ahmed, first turned his bicycle towards the left. Respondent 3 tried to turn the bus in the right hand side, but the deceased again turned his bicycle on his right hand side, as a result of which he dashed against the front side of the bus and died on the spot It is the respondent's case that none else was present at the time of the accident. However, immediately after the accident people from village Kalidevi came on the spot.
( 5 ) THE claimants, appellant 1 Shabbir Ahmed examined himself as also one Sherinkhan Pathan as a witness, while the respondents have examined the driver, Nisar Ahmed and the conductor of the bus, Haribhai, as witnesses.
( 6 ) THE Claims Tribunal by its award dismissed the appellants' claim mainly on the ground that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased Salim Ahmed, for which the respondents cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.
( 7 ) IT is contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Member of the Tribunal was in error in holding that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased Salim Ahmed. He further argued that the Tribunal erred in disbelieving the evidence of Sherinkhan Pathan (AW. 2 ).
( 8 ) WE have gone through the award dt. 30-9-1981. The learned Member of the Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence of Sherinkhan (AW 2) mainly on the ground that he was at a distance of about 225 feet from the place of the accident. For this he has relied upon a copy of the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhabua, in Criminal Case No. 385 of 1980, thereby acquitting the respondent 3 of the charge under Section 304-A, I. P. C. This judgment of the Criminal Court contains a reference to the spot inspection made by the Magistrate himself and on that basis the Tribunal has discarded the testimony of Sherinkhan (AW 2) as unreliable. Suffice it to say that this approach of the learned Member of the Tribunal is palpably wrong. Firstly, the claimants were not a party to the proceedings in which the spot map was
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
