Sonuram and Others vs Bhaskar Awasthi and Another

Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J.—This appeal is directed against the award dated 2-9-1995 passed by II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, in Claim Case No. 33/86 by which the petition filed u/s 110 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, for grant of compensation, has been dismissed, On 12-11-1984 at about 5.00 p.m. when the deceased Chhipkibai aged about 35 years was returning back to her village from Kondagaon along with others on foot through Jagdalpur Raipur road, respondent No. 1 coming from behind, driving the Bajaj Scooter No. MBS 4136 rashly and negligently dashed against Chhipkibai. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the vehicle and he was pillion rider. As a result of accident Chhipkibai sustained various injuries and consequent to that on 18-11-1984, succumbed to death. Chhipkibai at that time was earning Rs. 200/- per month by doing labour work. The incident was reported, to Kondagaon Police Station and after due investigation Police filed a challan against the respondents for committing offence u/s 304-A of the I.P.C. Respondent No, 1 received the scooter bearing No. MBS 4136 belonging to respondent No. 2 from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate involved in the incident. The claimants, who are husband and children of the deceased, assessing the compensation to the tune of Rs. 57,500/- on various counts, filed claim petition against both the respondents,

Respondent No. 1 although has admitted that Kondagaon Police filed the case against him, but submitted that the case filed against him was false and also denied the claim of the appellants. Respondent No. 2 in his reply denied the claim and also pleaded that the claim to be barred by time and not maintainable against him as well.

Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence held that respondent No. 1 by driving Scooter No. MBS 4136 in a rash and negligent manner on 12-11-1984, had not dashed against Chhipkibai. The Scooter is not owned by respondent No. 2. The Tribunal further held nexus between death of Chhipkibai and accident, has not been proved and in view of these findings, dismissed the claim petition vide impugned order dated 2-9-1995.

Respondent No. 2 on 5-10-1989 filed reply by way of affidavit wherein he accepted that a case u/s 304-A of the I.P.C., has been registered against the respondent No. 1 Bhaskar Awasthi. Scooter bearing No. MBS 4136 has been purchased by him from one Doctor Arun Kumar Verma. Respondent No. 1 Bhaskar Awasthi in his written statement did not dispute the fact that the case against him u/s 304-A of the I.P.C. has been registered, but only says that the case is false. Certified copy of first information report lodged by Bundilal (AW/2) on the date of incident has been filed in the case. The report unveils that the accident was caused by Scooter. Chhipkibai received various injuries on account of the accident, she was admitted in Kondagaon hospital in unconscious condition and on scooter two persons were sitting. Certified copy of post-mortem report has also been filed in the case, according to which Chhipkibai died on 18-11-1984 who had received various injuries on her body and died as a result of hemorrhage, extradural hemorrhage, subdural hemorrhage and laceration of brain (vital organ) caused by hard and blunt object during life. The injuries and cause of death connect the accident, therefore, Chhipkibai died as a result of multiple injuries received by her in the accident.

Sonuram (AW/1) was present at the place of accident. He clearly stated that the Scooter came behind his wife and dashed his wife Chhipkibai and two persons were sitting on the Scooter. He knows Kishore Kumar Khotale who was pillion rider in the scooter. Bundilal (AW/2) in his cross-examination in para 6 stated that Bhaskar Awasthi was driving the Scooter,

From the oral evidence it was clear that Scooter No. MBS 4136 was driven by respondent No. 1, Bhaskar Awasthi and pillion rider was Kishore Kumare Khotale, respondent No. 2. Registration of case and filing of charge-sheet against him had not been disputed.

From the above evidence, it was apparent that Chhipkibai died as a result of injuries caused to her in the accident and the accident was caused by respondent No. 1 by scooter No. MBS 4136. The scooter No. MBS 4136 is owned by respondent No. 2, who in reply by affidavit has admitted the same fact, Both the respondents in their written statements have not specifically made any averment that the said scooter did not cause the accident or respondent No. 1 has not received the said vehicle on Surudamma from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Even they have not specifically pleaded that this vehicle was not involved in the accident.

Both the respondents did not appear in the witness box to adduce their evidence to contradiet the evidence produced by the claimants, therefore, when it was proved that the accident took place and as a result of that Chhipkibai died. Scooter No. MBS 4136 was owned by respondent No. 2 and at the time of accident the said vehicle was driven by respondent No. 1 and pillion rider was respondent No. 2, then in these circumstances adverse inference had to be drawn against respondents who did not produce themselves in evidence,

From the aforesaid evidence and on the principle of adverse inference it should have been held that the respondent No. 1 was driving the Scooter No. 4136 owned by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed Chhipkibai who received multiple injuries and as a result of that, succumbed to death.

Learned Claims Tribunal has held that the deceased was earning Rs. 200/- per month by doing labour work and was spending 2/3rd of her income towards her family and also further held that the applicant No. 1 Sonuram was deprived of from marital life, but did not assess the amount of compensation. During argument the finding regarding income has not been challenged, therefore, if it is to be accepted as correct then loss towards annual income comes to Rs. 1600/- per annum.

Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, n which Hon''ble Apex Court has held that multiplier method of computation, held is the proper, logically sound and well-established method for determining compensation. Hon''ble Apex Court in that judgment keeping the fact that the deceased died at the age of 38 years, applied multiplier of 12. In the instant case, according to the appellants themselves, the age of the deceased Chhipkibai was 35 years at the time of incident which took place in the year 1984. Therefore, multiplier of 12 can be applied in the instant case. After applying the multiplier of 12, the loss towards income comes to Rs. 19,200/-, Appellant No. 1 Sonuram, who deprived of marital life, is also entitled to receive Rs. 2000/- towards consortium. In this way, appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 21,200/- (Rs. Twenty-one thousand two hundred only). By now all of the claimants have become major, therefore, taking into consideration all the facts, it is directed that the compensation be paid to the claimants by the respondents severally and jointly with interest @ 9% from 2-9-95 till realization. Rs. 1000/- towards cost of the litigation be paid by the respondents to the appellants/claimants. The above amount shall be payable to the claimants in equal share.