Shakuntala Devi vs Suchita Choudhary, widow of Late Ravikant Choudhary

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Appellant is the claimant and the instant appeal is preferred against the judgment in Claim Case No.72/2009, whereby and whereunder the application for compensation filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for the death of Musru Ram in the motor vehicle accident has been rejected.

As per the case of the claimant, on 12.06.2009, deceased Musru Ram was travelling as a passenger on Krishna Rath bus bearing registration no.BR 1PA 9797 from Bokaro to Siwan. The bus met with an accident in Koderma Ghati as it overturned due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle in which Musru Ram sustained critical injuries as his right foot and right ankle was completely crushed. He was admitted briefly at Sadar Hospital from where he was referred to higher centre on 14.06.2009. During course of his treatment, he died on 22.06.2009 at Apollo Trauma Centre, Patna.

Appellant/Claimant adduced into evidence the FIR, Koderma P.S. Case No.295/2009 (Exhibit 4), Charge Sheet (Exhibit 5) and the documents pertaining to treatment which have been marked as X series for identification. Copy of insurance policy, copy of death certificate, salary register have also been marked for identification by the Tribunal. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant.

The claim application was rejected mainly on the ground that there was no evidence that his leg was crushed and the document marked as ‘Y’ issued by Apollo Trauma Centre, Patna states that the cause of death cardio respiratory arrest. The accidental death was disbelieved by the Tribunal as it failed to establish the link between the injury and cause of death.

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is against weight of evidence brought on record on behalf of claimant. The FIR and charge sheet corroborates the testimony of the oral witnesses that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing registration no.BR 1PA 9797 in which 03 persons died on spot and other 10 – 11 persons were injured in the said accident. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted. The medical bills issued by pharmacist and pathological labs goes to show that the petitioner was under treatment during this period i.e. from the date of accident till his death at Apollo Trauma Centre, Patna. The prescription of Sadar Hospital, Koderma has also been adduced into evidence from which it will be evident that immediately after accident, the injured Musru Ram was admitted for treatment at Koderma Sadar Hospital.

Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company defended the impugned order. It is submitted that the document which were filed, has not been formally proved, therefore, it cannot be looked into. Further, there was no evidence to show that the deceased was resident of District Ramgarh therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim.

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the order of dismissal by which claim application has been dismissed, does not stand to reason.

The first ground that has been stated, is that the Tribunal at Hazaribagh was devoid of territorial jurisdiction to hear the lis. In this regard by way of additional evidence, the voter ID card of the claimant has been filed to show that she was a resident of Ramgarh, therefore, the Court at Hazaribag had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Further, it is a settled position of law that different standards of proof applies in civil and criminal cases. So far the case for compensation under Motor Vehicle Act is concerned, the rules of evidence do not apply in its absolute rigidity, therefore, the insistence of formal proof of each and every documents which had been filed on affidavit and has not been disputed by the respondent, cannot be reason to admit them into evidence.

On a combined reading of documents brought on record on behalf of claimant, it is evident that the accident did take place on 12.06.2009 regarding which FIR was registered being Koderma P.S. Case No.295/2009 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of the IPC. The fardbeyan states in no uncertain terms that there were 03 casualty and 10 – 11 persons were critically injured. After investigation, charge sheet has proved the occurrence. So far the issue of Masru Ram in the said accident is concerned, the death certificate has been filed which goes to show that he died at Apollo Trauma Centre, Patna on 22.06.2009. The documents have also been filed showing the medical bills regarding his treatment at Patna. On the basis of these evidence, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever regarding the deceased having suffered fatal injuries in the said accident and that he died during course of his treatment at Patna.

The offending vehicle in question was under insurance cover of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (respondent no.2), who had appeared and filed written statement. There is no specific denial of insurance of the vehicle, and the policy paper has also been filed to show that the said vehicle was under its insurance cover effective from 07.03.2009 to 06.03.2010 and therefore, it can be safely concluded that the vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident. The driving license of the driver Manish Kumar son of Maharaj Tiwary which was valid from 01.09.2008 to 31.08.2011. Permit has also been brought on record which has been marked as Z/1 for identification.

With regard to income of the deceased which has been pleaded in the claim application that he was employed as a Pump Operator under the Government of Jharkhand and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.13,315/-. The salary register has been filed which shows his net salary after deduction, Rs.12,500/-. Taking Rs.12,500/- as monthly income, 55 years as his age, since only one claimant has come forward as dependent of deceased therefore, 1/3rd will be deducted as the personal and living expenses and multiplier will be 11, Annual Income Rs.12,500 x 12 Rs.1,50,000/-

Annual Income Rs.12,500 x 12

Rs.1,50,000/-

Annual dependency after deducting 1/3rd on the living and personal expenses of the deceased Rs.1,50,000/- - Rs.50,000/-

Rs.1,00,000/-

Loss of dependency on taking a multiplier of 11

Rs.11,00,000/-

Future prospect @ 15%

Rs.1,65,000/-

Conventional head

Rs.70,000/-

Total

Rs.13,35,000/-

In this view of the matter, the Insurance Company will be liable to pay the compensation amount. The Insurance Company is directed to pay final compensation Rs.13,35,000/- with 7.5% interest to the claimants within three months of this order to the Tribunal which will be disbursed after proper identification.

For the reasons as discussed in M.A. No.386 of 2023, the interest will not be admissible on the compensation awarded under the heading of “future prospect”.

Miscellaneous appeal is accordingly, allowed.

Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.