Back
1997 (1) JLJ 414
S.K. Dubey and Miss Usha Shukla, JJ.
M.P.S.R.T.C. and anor. v. Jagrania and others
Misc. Appeal No. 728 of 1994; against the award passed by Shri B.M. Kulmi,
Member Accident Claims Tribunal, Seoni, in Claim Case No. 35 of 1991;
Decided on 23.9.1996.
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S.166 -- application under -- driver of offending vehicle facing criminal trial -- vehicle was seized -- none of the passengers of bus or from public examined -- driver of the bus alone cannot be believed who is denying involvement of bus. [Para 10
(3) Maxim -- res ipsa locuitur -- incident speaks for itself -- no eye witness examined to prove negligence -- maxim can be applied. [Para 10
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S.173 -- appeal under -- finding of trial Court on appreciation of oral evidence -- no special features pointed out -- appellate Court would permit such finding to prevail. AIR 1983 SC 114 followed. [Para 11
(5) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss.168 and 140 -- death of earning member -- earning Rs.1,000/- p.m. -- Rs.500/- p.m. may be assessed as dependency -- multiplier of 16 may be adopted -- widow may further be awarded Rs.10,000/- as consortium -- death of child -- minimum compensation under S.140 is Rs.50,000/- -- amount may be disbursed according to guidelines of Supreme Court. AIR 1994 SC 1631 and (1996) 3 SCC 608 followed. [Para 12
(6) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S.166 -- bus of corporate body involved in accident -- death of two members of the same family -- such corporate body should rush to the doors of dependents of the deceased instead of compelling them to approach the Court. 1980 ACJ 411 (SC) followed. [Para 13
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 166 rFkk 165 ¼1½ && ,d&gh ifjokj ds nks lnL;ksa dh e`R;q ds izfrdj ds fy, ,d vkosnu && ;fn mudh e`R;q ,d&gh nq?kZVuk esa gqbZ dk;e j[kus ;ksX; gSA 1977 ts ,y ts 288 rFkk 1993 , lh ts 65 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 8 rFkk 9 ¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 166 && vkosnu && mYya?kudkjh ;ku ds Mªkboj }kjk nkafMd fopkj.k dk lkeuk && ;ku vfHkx`ghr && cl ds ;kf=;ksa vFkok turk esa ls fdlh dh Hkh ijh{kk ugha dh xbZ && ek= cl ds pkyd dk fo‘okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk tks cl ds varoZyu izR;k[;ku dj jgk gSA ¿ iSjk 10 ¼3½ fof/kd lw= && Lo;a izek.k && ?kVuk Lo;a cksyh gS && mis{kk lkfcr djus ds fy, fdlh lk{kh dh ijh{kk ugha dh xbZ && lw= ykxw fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 10 ¼4½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 173 && vihy && ekSf[kd lk{; ds ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ && dksbZ oSf‘k"V~; bafxr ugha && ,sls fu"d"kZ dk vfHkHkkoh vihy U;k;ky; }kjk vuqKkr fd;k tk,xkA , vkb vkj 1983 ,l lh 114 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 11 ¼5½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 168 rFkk 140 && miktZu djus okys lnL; dh e`R;q && :- 1]000@& izfrekl dk miktZu && :- 500@& izfrekl vkfJrrk fu/kkZfjr dh tk, && 16 dk xq.kd ykxw fd;k tk, && fo/kok ds lkgp;Z dh gkfu ds :i esa vfrfjDr :- 10]000@& vf/kfu.khZr fd, tk,¡ && ckyd dh e`R;q && /kkjk 140 ds v/khu U;wure izfrdj :- 50]000@& gS && mPpre U;k;ky; ds ekxZn‘kZu ds vuqlkj jde laforfjr dh tk,A , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 1631 rFkk ¼1996½ 3 ,l lh lh 608 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 12 ¼6½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 166 && fuxfer fudk; dh cl nq?kZVuk esa varoZfyr && ,d&gh ifjokj ds nks lnL;ksa dh e`R;q && ,sls fuxfer fudk; dks e`rd ds vkfJrksa dks U;k;ky; vkus ds fy, foo‘k djus ds ctk; mudh vfr‘kh?kz lgk;rk djuk pkfg,A 1980 , lh ts 411 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 13
S.K. Dubey, J. -- 1. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act) the appellants challenge the award dated 11.7.1994, passed in Claim Case No. 35/91 by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Sidhi.
2. The respondent No.1 and 2 after notice of appeal have filed cross-objections under order 41 rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure for enhancement of compensation.
3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are these: On 6.3.1991, at about 10.00 p.m. deceased Rajkaran, aged 25 years, with his wife the respondent No.1 and son Lavlesh, aged 6 years was returning to his residence in village after attending a marriage feast. A stage carriage bus No. MKH 7836 driven by respondent No. 3 in the course of employment of appellants which was coming from Shaktinagar for going to Jabalpur, dashed the deceased Rajkaran and Lavlesh as a result of which both died at the spot. A report was lodged at Police Station Bargawan. The bus was seized by the police and after investigation a challan U/s 279, 337, 304-A IPC was filed against the respondent No. 3 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deosar.
4. The respondent No.1 the widow aged 22 years and father of deceased Rajkaran filed an application under Section t 66 of the Act to claim compensation of Rs. 17,88,000/- for the two deaths caused in the motor accident arising out of the use of stage carriage bus. The appellants raised a preliminary objection that the application for compensation of the two deaths is not maintainable. On merits it was contended that the accident was not caused by stage carriage bus. There was no rash and negligent act on the part of the respondent No.3.
5. The tribunal on the evidence of AW-1 Jagrania, the widow and that of NAW-1 Purshottam Shrivastava, the driver and material on record held that the accident occurred due to sole rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. Thereafter, assessed the compensation. On assessment of the earning of the deceased at Rs.500/- per month, giving a deduction therein of Rs.250/- per month for the personal living expenses of the deceased, estimated the dependency at the rate of Rs.250/- per month, yearly Rs.3,000/- applying the multiplier of 33, determined the compensation of Rs.99,000/-, for the death of Rajkaran and for the death of Levlesh the compensation was determined Rs.34,000/-. Thus; a total compensation of Rs.1,33,000/- was awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum for the death of Rajkaran and Lavlesh.
6. Shri Dhande, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the joint application for compensation for two deaths arising out of the same accident was not maintainable. The compensation is to be determined separately if there are more than one case arising out of the same accident. Common evidence can only be recorded on the issue of rash and negligent driving. A decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Basantilal Madholal and others v. M.P.S.R.T. Corporation [1977 JLJ 288=1977 MPLJ 331] was cited. On merits it was submitted that NAW-1 has specifically stated in his statement that no accident was caused with his vehicle. When he saw a crowd, he stopped the vehicle and saw one person and a child injured and lying dead. He stated on oath that he was falsely implicated on a false report. For award of compensation the multiplier applied is on higher side.
7. Re : maintainability of the application for compensation: The respondent No.1 the widow of the deceased Rajkaran and mother of deceased son Lavlesh, and the respondent No.2, the father of deceased Rajkaran as legal representatives of the deceased filed the application under Section 166 of the Act for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the Act. Sections 165 and 166 of the Act, so far as relevant for the purposes of this case, we extract:
"165. Claims Tribunals -- (1) A State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette; constitute one or mor
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
