The main legal point established in the judgment is the apportionment of liability in motor accidents and the assessment of compensation based on the claimant's income and disability.

BHAWANI SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Mandleshwar in claim Case No. 10 of 1994 dated 17. 11. 97.

( 2 ) ACCIDENT took place on 17. 4. 1989. Two vehicles truck No. CPU 6333 insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the bus No. MPO 1483 owned by the Madhya pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'm. P. S. R. T. C. ')are involved. The allegation is that these two vehicles collided with each other affecting on the rear portion of the bus. The claimant was injured in this accident as a result of which his right hand has been amputated. The injured got the proficiency certificate from the Labour Department and was an apprentice in some firm at dewas earning Rs. 700 per month. It is said that after completion of apprenticeship he was likely to get a monthly salary of rs. 4,000. The accident, according to the claimant, was the result of rash and negligent driving by the truck driver. At the time of accident he was 24 years of age. The M. P. S. R. T. C. has denied the responsibility for taking place of the accident, therefore, it is stated that it is not liable to pay compensation. The counsel for the insurance company has stated that there is no negligence for payment of compensation. The truck was being driven against the terms and conditions of the policy. The tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident took place on 17. 4. 1989 for which the bus was liable to the extent of 25 per cent and the truck 75 per cent. It is also found that due to this accident, right hand of the claimant has been amputated. Against claim of Rs. 2,15,000 compensation of Rs. 79,500 has been awarded carrying interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of the application. The allegation that the truck was being plied against terms and conditions of the policy, has been rejected, as not proved. Claimant is not satisfied with the award, therefore, it has been assailed through this appeal.

( 3 ) MR. H. S. Rajpal learned counsel for the appellant contended that finding of the tribunal with respect to apportionment of liability is not sustainable. It is contended that the truck was solely responsible for the accident, therefore, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The evidence of some witnesses was led in support of the contention. Mr. M. L. Dhupar learned counsel appearing for Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. contends that the bus was more liable than the truck and in case this court comes to the conclusion that both vehicles are involved in the accident, in that event, liability for the accident and payment of compensation should be equally distributed. Mr. S. S. Kemkar, the learned counsel appearing for the M. P. S. R. T. C. contends that the bus was not liable for the accident, therefore, finding of the Tribunal holding the M. P. S. R. T. C. liable to pay compensation to the extent of 25 per cent should be set aside.

( 4 ) AFTER giving consideration to the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that truck No. CPU 6333, insured with Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. , was solely responsible for the accident. The bus was carrying passengers to its capacity. It was moving on the left side of the road during the night. The evidence suggests that it was moving with speed of 40 km. per hour. It was realised by the passengers that the truck sped away after hitting rear side of the bus. The bus halted but not the truck. It sped away and could be intercepted by the bus which followed it after being hit. There is no evidence suggesting that the bus intruded into the space through which the truck was to pass, rather it appears that the truck came towards side of the bus and hit it from the side which shows that the truck driver did not drive it carefully and cautiously and caused the accident.

( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the contention of Mr. M. L. Dhupar that the truck was not responsible for the accident can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document