RANCHHOD Vs. GURUBACHAN SINGH
LAWS(MPH)-1980-9-53
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (FROM: INDORE)
Decided on September 24,1980

RANCHHOD Appellant
VERSUS
Gurubachan Singh and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.K. Vijayvargiya, J. - (1.)THIS appeal by the claimant is directed against the award dated 9.7.75 passed by the Second Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Indore, in claim case No. 95 of 1973.
(2.)THE facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as follows : On 5.3.73 at about 5.00 p.m. when Raju, a boy of about 13 years of age was coming from village Hajurganj to Indore he was knocked down by motor truck No. R.S.R. 1837 coming from the opposite, direction on the wrong side of the road. According to the claimant the motor truck was owned by the Respondent No. 5 and was being driven at the time of the accident by the Respondent No. 1. The truck was insured with the Respondent No. 3, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Kota (Rajasthan). According to the claimant the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the motor truck by the driver of the truck and therefore the driver, the owner and the insurance company were liable to pay compensation to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased Raju who succumbed to the injuries. The claimant claimed Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 remained absent inspite of service of notice and therefore were proceeded with ex -parte. The Respondent No. 3 the insurance company contested the claim. The Respondent No. 2 who was joined as a party to the application on the ground that he was the owner of the truck, denied that the truck belonged to him. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of the negligence of the driver in driving the truck. However, the Tribunal held that the identity of the driver of the said truck was not established. The Tribunal, therefore, held the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal assessed Rs. 1,000/ - as compensation. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal the claimant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low and requires to be suitably enhanced.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be allowed. The Respondents have not preferred any appeal against the award of the Tribunal and have also not filed cross -objections against the award. In the circumstances finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused on account of the negligence of the driver of the truck in driving the truck has become final. The only question therefore which arises for consideration is whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is too low requiring interference in this appeal. The Tribunal has held that the boy was of 12 to 13 years of age. He has awarded Rs. 1,000/ - as compensation because the boy was blind. However, it has emerged in evidence that although the boy was blind he was studying in second standard in the blind school at Indore. Vishwanath (P.W. 4) has deposed that the boy was studying in second standard in a Blind School and was also learning music and handicrafts. From the mere fact that the boy was blind it cannot be said that he would not have supported the claimant who is the father of the boy when the boy came up of age. Further it has emerged in evidence that after the accident the boy was taken first to Sewalaya hospital and thereafter to the M.Y. hospital, Indore and that he died in the hospital. Therefore he suffered physical pain and suffering on account of the injuries caused to him in the accident and compensation can also be awarded under that head. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low and a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - would be adequate recompense to the claimant for the death of the deceased. I, therefore, hold that the claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - from the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

(3.)THE Tribunal held that the truck was insured with the Respondent No. 3. In fact the Respondent No. 3 in its written I statement admitted that the truck was insured with it. However, while passing the award it appears that through slip of pen the Tribunal did not pass any award against the Respondent No. 3. On the admission of the Respondent No. 3 and as found by the Tribunal the Respondent No. 3 is clearly liable to pay compensation to the claimant.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.