Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
H.G. MISHRA, R.K. VIJAYVARGIYA, JJ.
Satyalata and Others
Vs.
Anwarkhan and Another
M.A. No. 189 of 1979
Decided On: 16.09.1981
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-A, 110-CC, 110-D - ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - LIABILITY - NEGLIGENCE - RES IPSA LOQUITUR - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - INTEREST - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 110-CC - JURISDICTION OF CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - SUMMARY OF FACTS, FINDINGS, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI AND FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
A passenger bus driven by Respondent No. 1, Anwarkhan, collided with a motorcycle carrying three persons, including the deceased, Ramsumaran Pandey. The claimants, the wife, minor sons, and mother of Ramsumaran Pandey, filed a claim for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, alleging that the accident was caused by the rashness and negligence of Anwarkhan during the course of his employment for the Respondent No. 2, the bus corporation. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the accident was not caused by the bus and that Ramsumaran Pandey did not sustain injuries as a result of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the accident was caused by the passenger bus and that it was occasioned due to rashness and negligence on the part of Anwarkhan, Respondent No. 1. The Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to the situation, as the accident was more consistent with being caused by negligence than by any other cause. The Court also held that the Respondents failed to discharge the burden of showing that the accident occurred without any fault of the driver of the bus.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident was caused by the passenger bus and whether it was occasioned due to rashness and negligence on the part of Anwarkhan, Respondent No. 1? 2. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the situation? 3. Whether the Respondents discharged the burden of showing that the accident occurred without any fault of the driver of the bus? 4. Quantum of compensation awardable to the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the accident was caused by the passenger bus and that it was occasioned due to rashness and negligence on the part of Anwarkhan, Respondent No. 1, based on the evidence of eyewitnesses and the First Information Report lodged by Anwarkhan himself. 2. The Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to the situation, as the accident was more consistent with being caused by negligence than by any other cause. The Court noted that the Respondents failed to explain how the accident occurred without negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. 3. The Court held that the Respondents failed to discharge the burden of showing that the accident occurred without any fault of the driver of the bus, as their evidence was not credible and did not constitute an effective rebuttal of the evidence led by the claimants. 4. The Court determined the quantum of compensation awardable to the claimants based on the deceased's monthly earnings, loss of dependency, and expenses on medical treatment. The Court applied a multiplier of 15 and deducted 15% for uncertainties of life, resulting in a total compensation of Rs. 48,900/-.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Claims Tribunal, and awarded compensation of Rs. 48,900/- to the claimants, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of submission of the application for compensation. The Court also directed that the Respondents pay the costs of the proceedings, including counsel's fee according to the schedule.
H.G. Mishra, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award dated 26.3.79 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandleshwar dismissing the claim of the Appellants.
2. Facts essential for the decision of the appeal are as under:
The claimant-Appellants submitted on 23.6.1978 an application for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the Act) before the learned Claims Tribunal on the allegations that the claimant No. 1 is wife, claimant Nos. 2 3 and 4 are minor sons and claimant No. 5 is mother of Ramsumaran Pandey, the deceased. It was on 28.12.1977 at about 10 30 a.m. that on a Bullet motor cycle bearing registration No. MPM 6155, driven by Gopaldas (AW6), Sureshchandra (AW2) and Ramsumaran Pandey were sitting one after the other on its pillion. They were going to Anjad. When they came near a culvert between villages Mandwada and Fatyapur, head light of the motor cycle was switched on. It was at this time, that they saw a local passenger bus (bearing registration No. MPF 7498) coming from the opposite direction at a fast speed. The speed of the bus was not lowered down inspite of signal given by the motor cyclist for the purpose. The bus dashed against the motor cycle and the persons riding on the motor cycle sustained injuries on their right legs and the leg-guard, mudguard and light glass of the motor cycle were damaged. This accident was occasioned due to rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus Anwarkhan, Respondent No. 1 during the course of his employment for and on behalf of the Corporation, Respondent No. 2 owner of the said bus. Ramsumaran Pandey and Sureshchandra were carried in the bus to hospital situated at Thikri. There, First Information Report (Ex. P/35) was submitted in writing by Jagdishchand Gupta alias Jagdish Kumar Gupta (AW3) at 12.30 p.m. Ramsumaran Pandey and Sureshchandra were given first-aid in the hospital at Thikri. There, the doctor asked them to be shifted to Indore because due to seriousness of their injuries, treatment at Thikri was not possible. Accordingly, Ramsumaran Pandey and Sureshchandra were taken to Indore where Ramsumaran Pandey was admitted for treatment in Tiwari Nursing Home. X-ray was also taken of the right leg of Ramsumaran Pandey. As a result of the injuries sustained by him, Ramsumaran Pandey died on 21.1.1978. At the time of the accident, Ramsumaran Pandey was aged about 32 years and was getting a salary of Rs. 375/- being a Line-man in the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. He was also earning about Rs. 400/- per month by doing private job of electric motor repairs etc. The loss of dependency has been assessed at Rs. 600/- per month. On the basis of these facts, the claimants have claimed by way of compensation:
(a) For loss of dependency Rs. 3,00,000/-
(b) For loss of company Rs. 1,00,000/-
(c) For mental agony Rs. 50,000/-
(d) For medical treatment Rs. 5,000/-
in all Rs. 4,55,000/- from the Respondents being liable jointly and severally to pay the same.
3. The claim was resisted by the Respondents on the grounds that : (1) no accident did take place as alleged by the claimants, (2) at the relevant time, three persons were riding on Royal Enfield (Bullet) motor cycle. The motor cycle was being driven at a very high speed in a zigzag manner. At the time, when the motor cycle had just crossed the Rapat and the Respondent No. 1' driver of the bus had just proceeded ahead, the person driving the motor cycle lost balance and consequently the motor cycle fell into a trench about 2 to 2 feet deep on the southern side of the road and thereby all the three persons sitting thereon sustained injuries. Accordingly, the Respondents are not liable in the matter and (3) that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 150/- to 175/- merely; and as such, the compensation claimed is excessive.
4. After recording evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim on the findings (i
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
