Partly allowed

M.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Ku. Savitari Patel and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jul 2010MA/736/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing compensation awarded to minors killed in a bus accident. The Court affirmed the driver's liability, rejected claims of deceased suicide, and re-calculated compensation based on a higher notional income, awarding an additional sum. Findings on negligence and damages were critical.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,11,000 to Rs. 1,44,330 with quantified interest of Rs. 7,000. Total due Rs. 1,51,330 payable by appellants.

M.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs Ku… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HXGH CgURT_OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR

¶2

M .A . N0 . "73 €_/20 01

¶3

¶4

APPELIANT
./ »l»'^M.P.StateRoad Transport €K>rporatlon
H.A. 2 through its Divisional Manager,
-<,./ Divisional office,Raipur ( ehhattis-
garh Sadak parivahan Higaci through
^'
,^ its ehief works Manager,Divisionai
.o9
^Jtf^ _.tfl workshop.Raipur - As mentioned in
A
the cause title before the Trtbunal
)
^c^ s. C-\Q<-. . ,.
"'&vvi-x'd'w^X •^ti^a.^Av e.\ ^ <--
.Oc)
^ ^oJ^pvy c c.<3).J
->'' «a VERSUS
/
RESPONDEETTS Ku.savitri Patel.aged about l3 yrs.
APPUCANTS
^2. ,»Sun.ll Kumar Pate-l.aged about ll yrs
f y
/••'T * ^
.'/^? <;/3. y>Kushuni^ Patel,aged about 8 years.
/•^^"
^.-••'y 'bigamber Patel, aged about S years.
^••""-^~ .
^••••^'...•'
/'.•" s^y ^y.-:v \y> ^J;3 Resppadents l to 4 are Sons and
.^'^'v^.0^ dydghters of late ChunnuIaJ. patel
^^ matemal
''minors'tbrough guardian —
.^'^"
^•.^".6. uncle Bhushanlal Patel,son of late
^.y^
^' Bhagwan singh Patel»resident of
RESPONDENT 5. ^ayaram Pargania, aged abo-at 36 yrs.
/. ^ :u:;::!":"r::'^'
N.A. l .
son of Niranjan Pargania, ( driver )
Divisional w&rk—stop.MPSg.Te.Ramwan-
Bbat$, Raipur,ehhattisgarh.
RESPOND^OT /' 6.^Pekanbai,wi£e of of late ehunnulal

¶5

6.^Pekanbai,wi£e of of late ehunnulal Patel, resident of ward no• 4 Baj arpara,Khariyar Ro ad, Distt. Naya Para,0ra.ssa.

¶6

.<• rl

¶7

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

M.A. No. 736 of 2001

¶9

APPELLANT M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & KA.No. 2 2 Another

¶10

KA.No. 2 2

¶11

Versas

¶12

RESPONDENTS aniriicants

¶13

Ku. Savitei Patel & Others

¶14

Memo ofappeal uader Section 173 oftiie Motor Vehicles Aet. 1988

¶15

(SV: Hon'UeMr.NJK.Aearwd.J.)

¶16

Presrait : ShriAvinash Mishra, AdvoGate for appellants. Shri Vivek Chopia, Advocate for respondent No.l to 4. None for respondent No. 5 tfaough served. NonefbrrespcmdeDtNo.6. :

¶17

ORALORDE»

¶18

(Psssed onl3tllday ofJufy,2010)

¶19

With fhe consent ofthe parties, the mattor is heard finally.

¶20

¶21

¶22

Eariier, tiie iasKmt appeal was preferred by M.P. State Road TrMisport Corporation as a aCTiellant. Later on, the name of ChhaUisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short 'CIDC') has been added as a ^)peBant No. 2.

¶23

By way of this order, Ihe q)peal preferred by Ifae qipellants and the cross objection preferred by tfae claanants i.e. respondentNQ. 1 to 4, are bemg disposed ofby tiris commonorder.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are Ihat, oa 21.03,1999, Chiumulal Patel (Since deceaswl), falfaer ofrespondent No. 1 to 4, was dashed by the Bus bearing regisfration No. MPK/2667 and died of the iajuries sustaiaed in the said accident.

¶25

The claimants, i.e. unjfortunate miaoTGhildFen oftiie deceased, filedan aCTdicE^oa claiming Rs. 9,00,000/- as compCTisation for

¶26

Ifae deafe oftheir fetiierin Aesaidaccident.

The appellante herein filed its wriften statement. Admitted the factum of accident but denied that t^e aecident oecuired due to rash aid negligent driving of the driver of the Bus. Both the parties led their evidences.

¶31

The Tribunal on a elose serutiny of the evidence led, mateial plpced and subtnissioas made, held drivcr of the offeading vehicle responsible for Ae said aceiden^ deceased was oftheage of45 years at fhe time ofaoeideat; afier taking into consideration Ihe notional income at Rs. 15,000/- per Mmum as provided ia Second Schedule appended to Section 163-A ofMVAct, and after deducting 1/3 of it towards personal e3g>enses of Ifae deceased, assessed loss ofdependency at Rs. 10,000/- per annum and by applying multiplier of 10, avrarded Rs. l,00,000/-on account of loss of dependency. Leamed Tribunal fiirther awarded Rs. 11,000/- on aecount of other heads, aad tfaus awarded Rs. I,ll,000/- as total compensatkm in favour of claimants jointiy and severally payable by tiie appellant aad Ifae driver 6f Ifae ofifending yehiGle along with interest at tiie rate of 6% per annum finm Ihe dateofappKcation tiU its payment.

¶32

Shri Avinash Mishra, learaed counsel for the appellant would submit that Ae deeeased was ofuasound nrimd, he liiniselfcame in contact with rear wheel ofthe Bus aad tiierefore, he himself was negligent and secondly, by citing decision passed by the Division Bench of this eourt in case of Smt. Daulat Devi & Another v. Ram Surat (MA No. 934 of 1997) and olfaer conneeted matter, would sybmit fhat loss has to be apportioaed between botii the appeViaQis.

¶33

¶34

On the olher haa4 Shri Vivek Chopra, leamed couasel appearing for respondent No. 1 to 4/claimaats would submit that a bare perusaloftheeyidence d recordofAe ease would revealfhat tfae deceased was dashed by tiie Bas. There was BO conductor ja the said Bus, aad liierefore, tiie Tribunal has rightly held the

¶35

/yk X'^,^'?'*! 1 ^,..-^^ •^—.-SF'-?

¶36

driver of the oflfonding vehicle as respoasible for the said accident. He would furfher subnat, that in view of decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Shivtal Saliu & Anotiier v. Chandra Shekhar & Other, reported in (1) CGLJ-216 (DB), the notional income ought to have been considered by the Tribunal at Rs. 20,000/per annum and compensation amount ou^it to have been assessed aceordingly which has aot been done, and therefore, amount ofcompensation deseryes to be suitebly enhanced.

I have heard leamed ccninsel appeariag for the parties, perused the impugned award aad records offhe Tribunal.

¶43

ASsr investigation, Ganj Police Station, Raipur, registered the offence against the driver of the offending vehicle uader Section 304-A of V?C for causing accidentel death ofdeceased.

¶44

BaU-am Dhrow (AW-3) has deposed Ifaat oflfending vehicle dashed tiie deceased. There is no suggestion to the said witness that said deceased was dashed by rew wheel of the Bus. It was denied by the said witness that the deeeased himselfjumped and due to which he came in contact with rear wheel ofthe Bus.

¶45

Dayaram (NAW-1) has dqwsed in his cross e^amination that after completion of police proceedings he has heard tiiat one person^has jumped^{towards tiie Bus.Theevidence ofdriver is in} the nature of hearsay evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal, after discussing the entire evidence, has rightiy disbelieved the statements of driver Dayaram aad also Radhika Prasad Tiwari (NAW-2), aad has rightly held the driver ofthe Bus responsable for the said accident.

¶46

So &r as amount of compeasation is canceroed, the Division Bench ofthis Court in case of Shivlal Sabu (Supra) has hdd that iflfae increase in tiie prices of<he essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and 1998 is tak^i into

¶47

¶48

consideratioa, the aotional income ofRs. 15,000/- prescribed m the year 1994 can be safely taken at Rs. 20,000/- per anaum w the year 1998.

¶49

¶50

In view of above, as ia the instant case Ae accideat occurred m the year 1999, the compensation requires to be re-assessed by taldng into consideration the notional iacome at Rs. 20,000/- in place^{ofRs.15,000/-.Bydeducling1^3} ofit towards personal e^enses ofthe deceased, tiie yearly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 13,333/- per aanum, by applying multiplier of 10 as applied by the Tribunal, fhe amouat of compensation would come to Rs. t,33,330/-. Further, by adding Rs. 11,000/- towards other heads as awarded by tiie Tribunal, ti total amount for which the claimants are entitied eomes to Rs. 1,44,330/- smd thus, Ifae claimanls are entided for a sum of Rs. 1,44,330/- instead of Rs. 1,11,000/- The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,11,000/-, therefore, the claimants are entifled for a fiirther sum of Rs. 33,330/- as compensation.

¶51

¶52

Leamed counsel for the pmties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the pwties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive iaterest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amoroit of interest on the enfaanced unouat of coinpensation may be quaatified in this appeal itself.

¶53

¶54

Considering all tiie relevant faetors, I quaatify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount QfRs. 33,330/- atRs. 7,000/-.

¶55

For the foregoiag reasons, the aiyeat fited by the appellant is allowed in part. The compensation ofRs. 1,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,44,330/- wilh fertfaer quantified amowat ofinterest ofRs. 7,000/- on the enhanced amouat ofRs. 33,330/-.

¶56

¶57

¶58

Both the appellants are Uable to deposit this amount in ratio of liabilities owned by 1faem and/or in terms of settlement as a consequence ofre-organizaftion.

¶59

The appellants are granted 3 months' tirne for depositing the total sum ofRs. 40,330/- (Rs. 33,330/- towards enhaaced amount of compensation + Rs. 7,000/- towards quantified amount ofinterest on the enhanced amount ofcompeasation) before the eonceraing claims Tribunal. In case, the amount is not deporited within a period oftiiree months, Ifae claimants are fiirflier entitled for the interest @ 6 percent per annum firoai the date ofthis order on the enhanced amouat of award i.e. Rs. 33,330/-. No order as to costs.

¶60

N-K^Qrsw^

¶61

Sahit

M.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Ku. Savitari Patel and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Ku. Savitari Patel and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhruv Kumar Vs Kapil Sareen and Others

Aynul Huk Vs Arvind Kumar Agrawal and Others

Dr.Tarun Kumar Naik Vs Rajesh Deshmukh and Others

Laxman Das Bajaj and Another Vs Manchit Rao Varaskar and Others

Raghuraj Singh and Ors. Vs Shanti Bai and Ors.

Smt.Kamla Bai Vs Muneer Ali and Others