Partly allowed

M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Tikaram Nagariya and Another

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2010MA/393/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, this court reduced compensation awarded for motor accident injuries from Rs. 66,000 to Rs. 25,000 due to lack of documentary evidence regarding injury and income.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's award of Rs. 66,000 is modified; the claimant is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation with interest.

M.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Tikaram Nagariya and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THS TOGH C£,UET OF ..•.ADHYA PRADS3H ;\T JA3<-Aj)ii)R
KS.SC. APFE.^L No .3'^3 of 1996 o
IIEILANT ^MaiihYa Fradesh Sr^s rtoad Transoort
.1. . ".G6r;3o3S'3ti-on, Ihrough i-ts Di.vi.si_onal
-teaa^ger, Lii.vi.si.on3j.0tti.ee, H.ai.pur,
,X . Amana'ts CoEiplsx, 3.S. Eoad, Rsi.pur.
.'/ersus
1NDENIS ; l/ Ti-keram Nagari.ya, aged about 34 years]
EANTS 3/o Kedsr Nagariy:3, Agri.cul ·cLiri.st
£. Shop Keepsr, R/o vi.].3.age Qoinda,
/ ^•?.ti). Ghh3'cera,,P.S. .-irang, Tahsi.lS. !: •S
FTfif?' ELSt. Rai.pur CM?). . -, !
X;A. ; 2/ pralhac' KLimar ?ancley, aged aboufc
31 yes.rs, S/o Shri. Sundar Lal Fandey,
Bus .Dri.ver.wPSa.TC, Rsipur Qepot'No.l;:
fc.P.S^ste Su'sd Transport Corporatj-oB^-
New Bus Stand- ?anc!riyGity, Tah. & l ;:
^
wn' Dist. Rai-our (MP)
yS3c'J^S£&.JJ:&.£l3-OF..3sM°'roR ^&SiS^J^L.^SSS-

¶3

c^^^-^ ^ x'
'• '^ %
'ia'
:I- !0' 1-^h"ftu cu":; - )Qnji'- •l- :-u'iicu Ti•Q&]
:i» )-• ro n>
01 i~J

¶4

¶5

./—•-••1«~3f-^^?-ff?^- :^~T-"<^fiss—\

¶6

•uia

¶7

H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

Misc. Appeal No. 393 OF 1996

¶9

Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

¶10

Vs. /

¶11

Tikaram Nagariya & Another

¶12

Post for pronouncement ofjudgment and orders on & /02/2010.

Sd/N- K- Agarwal

•lil ;1 il ^i!!

LduiuautuatdiiUtj

.,^swa
i.^i

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶18

Misc. Appeal No. 393 OF 1_996

¶19

¶20

Appellant

¶21

Madhya Pradesh State Road

¶22

Transport Corporation

¶23

Versus

¶24

Respondents/ Claimants

¶25

Tikaram Nagariya & Another

¶26

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.

¶27

(SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.)

¶28

Present : Shri Avinash Mishra, Advocate for appellant. None for respondents though served.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(Passed on ^ dav of February, 2010)

¶31

Thss is owner's appeal against the award dated 09.10.1995, passed by the 6 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'Tribunal') in claim case No. 77/94, whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 66,000/- has been awarded to the claimant for the alleged injuries sustained by him in the accident occurredon 12.05.1989.

¶32

The brief facts of the case according to the claimant are that, on 12.05.1989, when he was coming from Arang to Goinda by his TVS Moped bearing registration No. CIR-3168 alongwith Kirana Saman valued at Rs. 2500/-, the driver of offending vehicle Bus bearing registration Mo. MBG-6708 owned by the appellant and being driven by respondent No. 2 at the time of accident, dashed the appeilant as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. On his report, Police Station, Arang, registered a crime No. 75/89.

¶33

^-::i"sis-. jft^l|*;"%K-^ "^ ;A. ^r^s-^I..J """'-''•ts-.-iiv-;'^'''

The claimant filed an application claiming Rs. 3,03,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained in the said accident against the appellant and respondent No. 2.

¶39

The appellant herein fiied its repty. Although not denied the factum of accident but denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bus driver and pleaded that the claimant was himself responsibie for the said accident and also denied the injuries as pleaded by the claimant.

¶40

The trial court framed issues. The only document whlch the claimant has filed is the disability certificate (Annexure P/1), according to which, the claimant was examined by medical board of DK Hospital, Raipur on 08.11.1994 and the claimant was found disable to the extent of 15 percent. The ciaimant examined himself as weli as Ram Naresh (AW/2) and Dr. K. Sudarshan (AW/3). The appeltant did not examine any witness.

¶41

The Tribunal, on closescrutiny of evidence led, material placed, and submissions made by the parties, held the respondent No. 2 responsible for the said accident; assessed the income of the ctaimant at Rs. 1000/- per month from Kirana stores and Rs. 8000/-per annum from agriculture; since the claimant was of the age of 32 years at the time of accident, applied multipiier of 16 and taking into consideration 15 percent disability, assessed the loss of income due to permanent disability at Rs. 48,000/- and also awarded Rs. 10000/-towards medical expenses, Rs. 5000/towards pain and suffering and Rs. 3000/-towardsrepairing of his TVS Moped and thus awarded total sum of Rs. 66,000/-alongwith interest @ 12 percent per annum from the date of application.

'%• ^ ?/ ^..y

B ^i

Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant did not file any medical papers showing his treatment and showing his injuries caused in the said accident; did not file any papers regarding agriculture; regarding his Kirana Shop; regarding ownership of that TVS Moped; the claimant did not examine the doctor who treated him; certificate was obtained after lapse of five years and even as per the statement of doctor K. •Sudarshan (AW/3) examined by the claimant, he was unahle to say when the claimant sustained the said fracture, therefore the award passed by the Tribunal is shockingly on higher side.

¶48

I have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant, perused the order impugned and record of the Tribunal.

¶49

The claimant has examined himself, Ram Naresh (AW/2) and Dr. K. Sudarshan (AW/3) in support of his case. Respondent did not examine any witness. The ciaimant has filed one disability certificate issued by Dr. K. Sudarshan (Ex. P/1) on 08.1 1.1994 and some siips showing expenses in repairing of TVS Moped. No other document has been filed by either of the party. Neither police papers and MLC report nor documents showing ownership of TVS Moped, ownership of agricuitural land, Bills and vouchers regarding repairing of Moped, showing nature of injury, expenses incurred in the treatment, X-ray report showing any fracture, doctor's prescription, discharge ticket were filed. Only on the basis of disability certificate, which was issued after a period of five years, showing 15 percent disability in the right ankle, impugned award has been passed. The doctor has admitted in his cross examination that he did not examine the claimant and did not know

¶50

¶51

Sf ^y i-«a& >>; f't' /•:' '-€^71 ••^y

¶52

when the said fracture took place. Nowhere it has been stated by the doctor that how the said disability will affect the earning capacity of the claimant.

Sahu

In above nature of the evidence led by the claimant, in the considered opinion of this court, the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation at Rs. 66,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant. The claimant has not proved the injury by filing the relevant medical papers, not proved income by filing documents relating to his income or documents relating to his ownership ofthe agricuitural land or that he has sold some tand for his treatment. The award passed by the Tribunal seems to be based on no evidence but looking to the fact that the accident was not denied by the appellant, it cannot be said that the claimant did not suffer any injury in the accident.

¶58

Therefore, after considering all aspects of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, a sum of Rs. 25,000/as compensation would meet the ends ofjustice.

¶59

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award is modified and in place of Rs. 66,000/-,the claimant is entitled for a total sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. The above amount shall carry same interest as awarded by the Tribunal. No order asto costs.

¶60

1 Sd/N. K. Agarwal 1 Judge

M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Tikaram Nagariya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Tikaram Nagariya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sheikh Rahim and Ors.

Ku.Sumita Palaskar Vs Ramesh Kumar Gupta and Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sukhdeo Gond Thakur and Others

Dev Das Darsena Vs Smt.Girja Bai Darsena

Vikas Kumar Arya Vs General Manager O.C.M.Secland Others

Neelam Sinha Vs Dinesh Kumar Dewangan