Oral Judgment:
1] This appeal is against the impugned Judgment and Award dated 17/8/2004 passed in Claim Petition No. 34/2001 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur.
2] The facts in brief are stated as under:
Deceased Ashok Bhagwanji Nagpure, aged about 24 Years, who was employee in a Flower Shop of one Ramchandra Pillare in Nagpur City and artist in making Garlands and Bookey, was proceeding by Motor Cycle (Yamaha) bearing No. RX-100-MP-22-2259 on 29/10/2000 at about 3.30 p.m. When said Ashok Bhagwan Nagpure had reached near village Jam, ST Bus Bearing registration No. MH-12-UA-9728 came in high speed from opposite direction, gave dash to motor cycle, in the result, pillion rider had died on the spot, who was friend of deceased Ashok. Ashok was injured and shifted to Government Hospital, Sewagram, District Wardha and then to Government Medical College and Hospital at Nagpur for medical treatment. While taking medical treatment, Ashok had died on 1/11/2000.
3] The claimants (Mother as well as two sisters of the deceased Ashok) have filed Motor Accident Claim Petition, claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,50,000/.
4] The claim was resisted by appellant, as according to him, the accident had happened because of rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by the deceased Ashok Nagpure. According to appellant, bus was in a slow speed and driver of the bus was not at fault.
5] The incident was reported on 29/10/2000 and Crime No. 41/2000 under section 279, 337, 338, 304A and 427 of Indian Penal Code at Samudrapur Police station, District Wardha was registered against the ST driver. Injured motor cyclist was preferred for medical examination and treatment by Ambulance to Medical College, Sewagram.
6] Preliminary observations in the FIR reveal that ST bus bearing registration No.MH-12-UA-9728 was going towards Jam to Nagpur, while motor cycle bearing registration No.MP-22/2259 was going from Nagpur towards Jam. FIR was lodged by Police Station Officer Vijay Keshaorao Barapatre at Police station, Samudrapur against motor cyclist on the ground that he had given dash to ST Bus on its front side. It seems that both the vehicles have suffered damage of Rs. 20,000/- by each other. Police had decided to prosecute motor cyclist on the ground that he had driven the motor cycle rashly and negligently.
7] The Spot Panchanama (Exh.28) reveal that front side of ST bus i.e. Portion of radiator and bumper was in damaged condition. The motor cycle was lying on the road by the Conductor side in front of front wheel of the ST Bus and front of the motor cycle was totally damaged. Head light was broken and chasis was in a bent condition. It was estimated at the loss of Rs. 20,000/- to the motor cycle and equal loss to the bus. The Spot Panchanama also noted tyre marks to the extent of 50 feet to the direction of Jam from the rear wheel of the ST Bus.
8] It appears from Injury Report that motor cyclist had suffered head injury with fracture to femur. Post Mortem Notes of deceased Ashok Nagpure reveal that cause of death was Pulmonary Thrombosis associated with Injuries.
9] On behalf of the claimants, Lata Suresh Kadu, the sister of deceased was examined, in whose evidence, reference was made of FIR, Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama, Injury Report and Post Mortem Report and also Death Certificate. Claimants have claimed compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/-. According to witness Lata Kadu, the bus was driven recklessly and dashed against motor cycle, causing the accident. While on behalf of respondents, respondent no. 2 driver of the ST Bus was examined.
10] According to driver of the ST Bus, after he left Jam and reached near a turning at about 2 KM from Jam by taking ST Bus No. MH-12-UA-9728 from Rajura to Nagpur, he saw motor cycle from front side in the high speed and he had made ST Bus slow and taken it in left side of the road. The width of the road was sufficient to pass three vehicles at a time. Motor cycle rider gave dash in left side portion of the ST Bus, though it was in left side portion of the road. At that time, motor cycle had two riders over it and they have fallen down from the motor cycle. Thus, it was driver Sayyad Yusuf, who gave report to Jam Police.
11] On the basis of this evidence, it appears that the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after reading documentary evidence and also oral evidence, observed that in ordinary course, such accident has happened involving two vehicles and two drivers. Both the parties blame each other alleging negligence on the part of rival driver. It is obligatory upon the party alleging negligence to establish the fact by valid and cogent evidence.
12] Learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal appears to have considered Spot Panchanama (Exh.28) and observations made therein including tyre marks of ST Bus to infer that the bus was in high speed and sudden brakes were applied, as a result of which, tyre marks were impressed on the road. Thus, considering the copies of documents on record and documentary evidence, learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to conclusion that alleged mishap was the result of driving of ST Bus in a high speed rashly and negligently imputing blame to the Driver (respondent no.2). Thus inference was made to the effect that alleged accident was caused due to ST Bus driving in high speed rashly and negligently applying sudden application of its brake, which resulted in lost of control by driver of the motor cyclist, which collided with ST Bus.
13] Thus, learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held it established that the ST Bus was driven rashly and negligently and proceeded to Award compensation holding that deceased could have earned Rs. 15000/- per year and on that basis, after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 17 and loss of dependency, was arrived at Rs.1,70,000/-, to which amount of Rs. 14,500/- were added towards loss of love and affection, loss of contribution to the estate and funeral expenses. Thus, total sum of Rs. 1,84, 500/- was awarded inclusive of interim relief based on No Fault Liability and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization.
14] Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal erred to allow compensation holding driver of the ST Bus liable for rash and negligent driving of the ST Bus. According to learned Advocate, rashness and negligence of ST Bus driver was not established before the Tribunal. He also contended that even assuming that there was rashness and negligence on the part of ST Bus driver, the proportionate liability of motor cyclist also could have been fixed as contributory to negligence, which resulted into accident. It is further contended that amount of compensation awarded by taking the base figure of Rs.15000/- as annual income of the deceased, was also erroneous on the part of learned Tribunal. As according to him, there was no evidence to establish that deceased Ashok Nagpure was in the employment of Flower vendor at Nagpure and, therefore, the monthly and yearly income of the deceased Ashok after having assets at much lower figure than Rs.15,000/- per annum.
15] Since Advocate for the respondents/claimants did not appear at final hearing of this appeal, I have no advantage to hear his submissions regarding the impugned Judgment and Award.
16] The question that arise as to whether inference is required to be drawn from the impugned Judgment and award regarding the finding that death of Ashok Bhagwanji Nagpure was direct result of rash and negligent driving of ST Bus bearing registration No. MH-12-UA-9728 owned by appellant and the second question is as to what could be the appropriate quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. Regarding the first question, except interested words of driver of the ST Bus, we have no other independent evidence and eye witness in the present case. However, we do have evidence, which is documentary in nature, it was referred too in the impugned Judgment. Claimant Lata Kadu had deposed about the documents received from police, which were on record i.e. FIR (Exh.27), Spot Panchanama (Exh. 28), Inquest Panchanama (Exh.29), Injury Report (Exh.30), School Leaving Certificate of deceased Ashok (Exh.31), Post mortem Report (Exh.33) and also Income Certificate allegedly issued by shop owner (Art-A).
17] The Spot Panchanama reveal that ST Bus had damage on its front side, as portion of the radiator and bumper were found damaged. While motor cycle, which was lying in front of the front wheel of the ST Bus, was also damaged on its front side and head light was in the broken condition with bent chasis of the motor cycle, from which estimated damage is in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-. ST Bus was also found damaged on its front side radiator and bumper. It is pertinent to note that panchanama made reference of the tyre marks of ST Bus to the extent of 50 feet away from the rear wheel of the ST Bus and also at couple of places, blood was noticed.
18] Thus, according to spot panchanama, both the vehicles were found damaged to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-, but, the fact that tyre marks were noticed from the rear wheel of the ST Bus to the extent of 50 feet. This would indicate that bus was being driven in very high speed, due to which road accident had occurred. The panchanama also mentioned part of the leg near left side gear of the motor cycle.
19] Under these circumstances, in absence of any injury to the driver of ST Bus or any passenger traveling in the ST Bus, it cannot be inferred that motor cyclist was driving in very high speed, rashly and negligently. Perusing the description in the panchanama regarding damage caused to the motor cycle and bus although estimated at Rs. 20,000/- for both the vehicles, the description would reveal that damage to the bus noted in the spot panchanama was comparatively much less.
20] Looking to these observations, the evidence of driver of the bus, who went to lodge report with Jam Police, must have impressed upon police to record his preliminary version blaming the motor cyclist for the accident. In fact, FIR is not lodged by the driver of the ST Bus, but, by the policeman. Although driver had approached police with report, police could have recorded his statement or police could have insisted upon recording of his statement by the police.
21] Considering that, spot was a turning point on the road, it was expected of a professional ST Driver to drive the ST Bus at a reasonable speed, cautiously to avoid any road accident. Particularly, if bus driven in high speed, it may come suddenly across a two wheeler from the front side and driver of the two wheeler is most likely to loose control over the vehicle. Therefore, looking to the nature of evidence, interested words of driver of the ST Bus cannot be accepted as gospel truth, in such matters. Particularly when there was no any other evidence of independent eye witness, who had seen the accident, to corroborate drivers version.
22] In these circumstances, on the principle of res ipsa loquaitur i.e. things speaks by itself. The observations made in spot panchanama were crucial to decide the controversy, therefore, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, to answer the first question that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the ST Bus driver. Although it is contended that motor cyclist was contributory to the accident and he was prosecuted, Insurer did not lead any evidence to raise any inference that motor cyclist had contributed to the accident in the present case.
23] For all these reasons, I do not find fault in the finding that ST Bus driver in this case was responsible, who due to rash and negligent driving in the high speed had caused the accident, which resulted in death of victim Ashok Bhagwan Nagpure in this case.
24] Next question is regarding quantum of compensation. In the present case, it appears that considering the fact that victim was a labour class person working in Flower Shop, sum of Rs. 15,000/- was taken as yearly income of the victim so as to compute compensation in this case. In Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, with reference to Section 163-A, have prescribed guidelines with reference to age of victim, multiplier and compensation, in case of death of the victim, which mentions various slabs of annual income between Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. Looking to the date of accident that it had happened on 29/10/2000 and considering that Second Schedule was introduced w.e.f. 14/11/1994, which mentions notional income for compensation for those who had no income prior to accident. Thus, even in case of nonearning persons in the year 1994, sum of Rs.15,000/- per annum was prescribed as notional income to award compensation. Therefore, calculation of compensation on the basis that deceased was earning or could have earned sum of Rs.15,000/- per annum is acceptable and reliable.
25] The computation of compensation in the present case was made on the basis that deceased would have earned annual income in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- per year, 1/3rd amount was deducted towards his personal expenses and the balance of Rs. 10,000/- was multiplied with multiplier 17 for arriving at the figure of loss of dependency of Rs. 1,70,000/-. Besides this, conventional benefits were considered for awarding damages for loss of love and affection, loss of contribution to the estate and funeral expenses in the sum of Rs. 2500/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2000/- respectively. Thus, total sum of compensation was fixed at Rs.1,84,500/- inclusive of interim compensation for no fault liability under section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act. The rate of interest @ 6% per annum awarded was also minimum in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Thus, looking into the nature of evidence before the Tribunal and facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Award. Hence, following order is passed.
ORDER
1) Appeal is dismissed.
2) Learned Advocate for the appellant states that amount Rs.1,41,234/- was deposited by the appellant vide Receipt No. 00926, dated 23/11/2004 and it is withdrawn by the claimants.
3) R and P be sent back to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.