SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(MP) 41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
C.P. SEN, J.
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Vs.
Yasin and Ors.
Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 1972
Decided On: 16.04.1974

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.L. Dube, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Bansal, Adv.

The amount of compensation payable to the parents of a child killed in a motor vehicle accident is to be determined on the basis of the pecuniary loss suffered by them, taking into account the age, education, and earning potential of the child.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-B, 110-D - FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT - SECTION 1A, 2 - COMPENSATION FOR DEATH OF CHILD - ASSESSMENT - PRINCIPLES.

Fact of the Case:

A 12-year-old boy was knocked down by a city bus and died due to injuries sustained. The parents of the deceased filed a claim for damages against the bus corporation and the driver.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent act of the driver and awarded compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the parents under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the accident was caused by rash and negligent act of the driver? 2. The amount of compensation, if any, payable to the claimants.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person driving a motor vehicle on a highway must drive the vehicle with reasonable care, strictly observing the traffic Regulations and the rules of the road, so as not to imperil the safety of other persons. 2. The powers given to the Tribunal under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act are quite wide. 3. The expression 'just' has a wider ambit than the words in Sections 1A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act and a Claims Tribunal while dealing with a case under the Motor Vehicles Act, has only to consider what appears to it to be just compensation on the facts and circumstances of the case before it. 4. Compulsory damages under Section 1A of the Act for wrongful death must be limited strictly the pecuniary loss to the beneficiaries and that under Section 2, the measure of damages in the economic loss sustained by the estate.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

C.P. Sen, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award of the Claims Tribunal.

2. The facts in brief are that on 30-1-1970 at 8.30 a.m., the deceased Syed, aged about 12 years, was going from Badwali chowki towards his house in Bajariya, by the left side of the road, when the city bus No. MPG 4800 came from behind and knocked him down. As a result, the boy Syed was thrown on the left side and he fell unconscious and a crowd collected but the bus did not stop, and went away. A report of the incident was lodged immediately by the father of the boy in Sadar Bazar Police station, Indore. Thereafter, the boy was taken to M.Y. Hospital, where he expired at about 2 p.m. due to the injuries sustained by him. A claim for damages amounting to Rs. 30,000/- was laid by the parents of the deceased against the Appellant and the driver of bus. The defence was that the boy was hanging on the back side body of the bus, he slipped and received the injuries and there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver. The learned Claims Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 5000/- on account of pecuniary loss incurred by the parents on the death of the boy. Against this award, the present appeal has been preferred by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and there is no cross objection.

3. The question to be determined are; (i) whether the accident was caused by rash and negligent act of the driver and (ii) the amount of compensation, if any, payable to the claimants.

4. It is well established that a person driving a motor vehicle on a highway must drive the vehicle with reasonable care, strictly observing the traffic Regulations and the rules of the road, so as not to imperil the safety of other persons, whether they are pedestrians or cyclists or others, who have similar right to use the highway on which he drives it. The driver must keep a good lookout in all directions of the road, on the sides and on the stretch of the road in front of him.

5. Here the claimants have examined two eye witnesses, Faizulla (A.W. 3) and Sultan (A.W. 4) who were immediately behind the deceased when the accident occurred and both have stated the boy was going by the extreme left of the road, when the city bus M.P.G. 4800 came in speed from behind and the boy was knocked down by the front left side bumper of the bus and the boy was thrown on the left side and fell unconscious and the bus did not stop. The testimonies of these witnesses are assailed on the ground that (i) these witnesses are got up witnesses because they were known to the claimants, yet, their names were not disclosed in the application for compensation although the prescribed form requires the name of the witnesses to be disclosed in the application and (ii) none of these witnesses stopped at the place of accident for more than two-three minutes, inspite, of the fact that they knew the injured boy, which was most unnatural conduct on their part. It is true that names of those witnesses have not been mentioned in the application inadvertently, because, name of Faizulla (A.W. 3) is mentioned in the F.I.R. (Ex. P/1), lodged immediately after the accident, and both the witnesses are residents of the same locality and their presence at the time of the accident cannot be doubted. It is also true that these two witnesses did not stop for more than 2/3 minutes after the accident and this is quite natural because the father of the boy and others had also collected there and since no visible external injuries were on the boy, the accident was perhaps not thought to be serious. Further, the statements of these witnesses have been fully corroborated by the father of the boy, Yasin (A.W. 2), who was also near the place of accident. On the other hand, the defence is that the boy was hanging on the body from behind and he slipped and received the injuries. Dr. Bakliwal A.W. 1 admits that such injuries can be sustained by fall from a fast moving vehicle.






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top