M.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Iman Singh and Another

B.M. Lal, J.—Claimant Iman Singh brought an action before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Seoni (in short the Tribunal) claiming a sum of Rs 2 lakhs for the injuries he suffered as a result of the accident which occurred on 11-5-1981 near Chhindwara Naka at Seoni.

According to the claimant on 11-5-1981 at about 7.00 p.m. he was going on a bicycle from Seoni to Nampur when the appellant''s bus bearing registration No. CPH 8733 came from the opposite direction and dashed him and be fell down on the metalled portion of the road on his left side. At the relevant time, Abdul Kayuum was the driver of the said bus and, it is alleged that, the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently.

Owing to the accident, the claimant sustained multiple injuries on his person including compound fracture of the left femur, and he had to be admitted in the Victoria Hospital Jabalpur for about 2-1/2 months. Or. R.N. Gupta (PW-3) has deposed about the injuries and AW 22, Kashiratn has established negligence on the part of the driver Respondent No. 2 that the bus was driven rashly and negligently.

The learned Tribunal assessed the claimant''s earning at Rs. 7/-per day as such his annual income was held to be Rs. 2,520/-. It is further held that the claimant was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and the Tribunal adopted 15 years multiplier and thus awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,800/- towards loss of income plus Rs 2,000/- for pains and mental agony ; a total sum of Rs. 39,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum and pleader''s fee Rs. 500/-.

Learned Counsel for the appellant while assailing the award impugned contended that this award is too excessive and, therefore, it be modified accordingly.

The statement of Dr. R.N. Gupta (PW-3) reveals that the claimant suffered permanent disability and, therefore the permanent loss is assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 210/- per month and hence the multiplier applied by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unjustified. On the other hand considering that the longevity trend in India is 70 years as is held h several recent decisions, the amount awarded is rather less as the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award taking into consideration 55 years longevity.

This being so, this appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs, Counsel''s fee Rs. 750/- if certified,