Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs Sharad Nathooram Mahimkar

B.M. Lal, J.—This appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is filed by the non-claimant, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal (in short MPSRTC) against an award dated 20-1-1983, whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Seoni, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has awarded Rs. 30,500/- in favour of the Claimant Sharad Nathooram Mahimkar, a Bombay based trader.

In short: the respondent filed a claim petition before the Tribunal against the MPSRTC, on the ground, inter alia, that he was travelling in a passenger bus belonging to the appellant bearing registration No. CPM 8604 as a bonafide passenger from Nagpur to Jabalpur via Seoni on 31-12-1981. Just eight kilometers ahead of Seoni the said bus dashed against the stationery truck bearing No. MPC 1758. The bus was driven rashly and negligently by Sheikh Ahmad who died on the spot instantly. As a result of the accident the respondent sustained severe injuries on his fore-head, nose, right shoulder, clavicle bone, right foot and left foot and on both hands. The impact of the accident was so serious that the bus rolled on 50 feet and then dashed against a tree. The Respondent was hospitalised in the Seoni District Hospital. On X-Ray examination, fracture of right clavicle bone, fabula and tibia bone were found. The respondent remained in the hospital till 3-1-1982 and was discharged on 4-1-1982.

The respondent further alleged that after returning to Bombay on 6-1-1982 again he had to be admitted in Bhatila Chandel Hospital, Bombay and undergo treatment as indoor patient. As such according to him, he had suffered a loss of earning to the tune of-Rs. 18,000/-; Rs. 10,000/-on account of treatment; Rs. 4,150/-for payment to the nursing home and as such total loss he assessed at Rs. l,10,000/-for which he filed the claim petition,

While denying all the averments of the claim petition, the appellant submitted that the respondent is not entitled to claim any compensation.

However, having found that the respondent was a bonafide passenger in the appellant''s bus which met with the alleged accident on 31-12-1981 and the bus was driven rashly and negligently by the driver which dashed against a stationery truck bearing No. MPG 1758 and the claimant sustained injuries as averred in the claim petition, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the claimant to the tune of Rs. 30,500/-,

The claimant respondent has also filed a cross-objection for enhancement of the claim amount.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,500/- whereas the facts as are appearing on record do not warrant for such a huge compensation. In support of his contention learned Counsel reiterated the same grounds as have been advanced before the Tribunal. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that from the fact found by the Tribunal, the amount of award deserves to be enhanced.

After hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, this Court has reached the conclusion that both the appeal as well as cross-objection deserve to be dismissed.

Though the fact that the bus in question was driven by Sheikh Ahmad has been denied, yet Ramesh Prasad Gupta (NAW 1) has stated that the bus No. CPM 8604 was driven by Sheikh Ahmad on 31-12-1981. This witness was travelling in the same bus as a conductor. The statement of respondent who has examined himself as AW 2, reveals that the bus was driven at an excessive speed and because of excessive speed it could not be controlled and it dashed against the rear of a stationary truck and rolled on 50 feet and then dashed against a tree. As such it was proved that the bus was driven rashly and negligently in which the respondent/claimant was travelling on 31-12-1981, 9. Dr. M.N. Trivedi, AW 1 stated that the respondent was admitted in the hospital on 1-1-1982 and in X-Ray fractures of clavicle bone, fabula were found. Apart from these, multiple injuries were also from on the per-, son of the respondent. AW 5, Dr. Ajay Kothari has also stated that the appellant was admitted in the hospital. Dr. Suresh S. Vengsarkar (AW 3) stated that he has received Rs. 400/- on account of professional service rendered to him for management of the injury sustained by the claimant. Exhibit P-7 is the receipt. AW 5, Dr, Ajay Kothari stated that he had received Rs. 500/-; Dr. Priayadarshini (AW-6) stated that she had received Rs. 4,150/-as detailed in Exhibit A-4. Thus there is sufficient evidence to show that the claimant respondent had incurred expenses on his treatment to the tune of Rs. 8000/- and for his nutritious diet during treatment as indoor patient and that his income was to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month as per income tax assessment. The Tribunal has rightly arrived at the finding that the claimant suffered a loss of Profit from the date of accident till the date of his recovery to the tune of Rs. 8,000/-. Similarly loss towards pain and suffering Rs. 1,500/-, loss of amenities of life to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and loss of expectation of life to the tune of Rs. 8,000/-, thus total sum of Rs. 30,500/-has been awarded. The learned Tribunal has also rightly granted interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of award till realisation on the amount awarded. This award was made by the Tribunal on overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as are appearing on record and, therefore, no interference is called for in the award impugned.

While dealing with the cross-objection of the respondent/claimant as made, the finding reached by the Tribunal is based on materials on record. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent claimant could not point out that any material evidence on record has been ignored by the Tribuaal or that the Tribunal has committed any error in awarding less compensation.

This being so, the cross-objection filed by the respondent has no force and it deserves to be dismissed.

From the discussions aforesaid, while rejecting the cross-objection of the respondent, the appeal is dismissed with cost. Counsel''s fee Rs. 750/-if certified.