Bhuri Bai vs Karamjeet Singh and others

Bhawani Singh, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. 18/94, dated 31-1-98.

Claimant was travelling in bus No. MP-04/F0344, owned by Shrilal J.S. Ram and driven by Gangaprasad. Near village Chetma, truck No. MP 23-B 3740, owned and driven by Karamjeet Singh rashly and negligently had collision with the other vehicle resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant in the right hand which ultimately had to be amputated causing permanent disability to the extent of 90%. Claim for Rs. 20,84,500.00 has been made.

Respondents No. 3 and 4 stated that claimant was negligent since she should not have projected her hand outside the bus. The vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., while the truck was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Tribunal accepted the claim and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,29,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Claimant is not satisfied with this award, hence this appeal.

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

The Tribunal has held the claimant for contributory negligence to the extent that she had projected her arm outside the bus. However, compensation has not been reduced on that count. It found both the vehicles responsible in equal proportions. Finding of the Tribunal with respect to negligence of the claimant cannot be sustained. There is no evidence suggesting that the driver and conductor of the bus ever cautioned the passengers to keep their limbs inside the bus. Fact remains that it is the duly of the drivers of the vehicles to keep reasonable space between the two while crossing each other. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Sushma Mitra Vs. M.P.S.R.T.C. and others (74 ACJ 87) and Single Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana and another Vs. Ram Pal and another (89 ACJ 726). Therefore, we set aside the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter, but proceed to confirm the finding with respect to negligence of drivers of the two vehicles to equal extent.

Next question is whether compensation has been correctly determined in this case. Claimant stated that she was earning Rs. 100.00 per day by garment stitching and Rs. 40.00 per day from dairy business, thus earning Rs. 140.00 per day. Taking the other evidence also into consideration, we are of the opinion that reasonable amount of earning in this case should be Rs. 1200.00 per month. On account of 90% disability, the loss of earning would be Rs. 1,000.00 per month and Rs. 12,000.00 per year. In this case the proper multiplier should be 16. Thus counted, the compensation payable in this case is (1000 x 12 x 16) : Rs. 1,92,000.00 plus Rs. 3,000.00 towards medical expenses and Rs. 1500.00 as special diet awarded by the Tribunal, taking the total compensation to Rs. 1,96,500.00.

We are of the opinion that the amount settled is quite reasonable, particularly in view of settled position that in personal injury cases, amount of compensation should normally be higher as compared to fatal cases, since in the former cases, compensation is utilised by the victim for herself as compared to other cases, where the same is utilised by the dependents. The amount of compensation shall be shared equally by the Oriental Insurance Co., owner and driver of truck No. MP 23-B-3740 jointly and severally along with United India Insurance Co. and owner and driver of bus No. MP 04/F-0344. The amount will carry interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal from the dale of application till the date of realisation.

Costs on parties.

Misc. Appeal allowed.