Judgment:
A.R. Tiwari, J.
1. This order governs the disposal of the connected six Misc. Appeals as particularised above. These appeals are directed against the common award datedMay 2, 1991 passed in six claim cases arising out of one accident, by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, Mandsaur. The connectable references are as under:
(a) Misc. Appeal No. 304 of 1991 is filed against the award passed with reference to Claim Case No. 16 of 1986;
(b) Misc. Appeal No. 305 of 1991 is filed with reference to award passed in Claim Case No. 11 of 1986.
(c) Misc. Appeal No. 306 of 1991 is directed against the award passed with reference to Claim Case No. 27. of 1986;
(d) Misc. Appeal No. 307 of 1991 is presented against the award passed with reference to Claim Case No. 33 of 1986;
(e) Misc. Appeal No. 308 of 1991 is filed with reference to award passed in Claim Cases No. 32 of 1986; and
(f) Misc. Appeal No. 309 of 1991 is filed against the award passed with reference to Claim Case No. 17 of 1986.
Barring Claim Case No. 27 of 1986, which Pertains to claim of damages to the car, the claimants have filed cross-objections in all these Misc. Appeals except Misc. Appeal No. 306 of 1991.
2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. Sushilabai, Poornima, Kailashchandra (father), Ushabai (mother), Ajay Kumar and Pinkesh were travelling in car bearing registration number MPO-471 driven by Mohanlal alias Mannu. On December 13, 1985 the car was coming from Ratlam to Mandsaur. At about 6.30 P.M., 10 Kms. before Mandsaur, Abdul Rajjak - appellant No. 3 drove the bus of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (Appellants Nos. 1 and 2) bearing registration number MPN-7412 rashly and negligently and collided with the car. As a result of this accident Mohanlal (driver), Kailashchandra (Father), Ushabai (Mother) died on the spot and Pinkesh, Ajay Kumar, Poornima and Sushilabai suffered grievous injuries. The car was also damaged. The claimant filed the claim cases which were registered as noted above and were allowedpartly. In Misc. Appeal No. 304 of 1991 compensation of Rs. 1,60,000.000 was passed: in Misc. Appeal No. 305 of 1991 compensation of Rs. 87,000.00 was awarded; in Misc. Appeal No. 306 of 1991 damages to the tune of Rs. 12,000.00 were allowed; in Misc Appeal No. 307 of 1991 compensation of Rs. 21,000.00 was awarded; in Misc. Appeal No. 308 of 1991 compensation of Rs. 45,000.00 was allowed, and in Misc. Appeal No. 309 of 1991 compensation of Rs. 1,55,000.00 was awarded. The interest @ 12% was also allowed.
3. Aggrieved by the award the appellants filed the aforesaid six appeals relating to six different claim cases, whereas claimants filed cross-objections in all these appeals except Misc. Appeal No. 306 of 1991.
4. We have heard Mr. S.S. Kemkar, learned Counsel for the appellants in all these appeals, Mr. Champalal Yadav, learned Counsel for the claimants in the appeals and on cross-objections; and Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned Counsel for the New India Insurance Company where the aforesaid car was insured. Mr. A.H. Khan, learned Counsel appeared for Insurance Company in one appeal.
5. Mr. Kemkar submitted that the Tribunal erred in law in holding the driver of bus negligent and that the level of compensation is excessive. Mr. Yadav, on the other hand, submitted that the finding about the rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus is proper and the amount of compensation requires suitable enhancement. M/s. Dandwate and Khan supported the direction rejecting the claim against the Insurance Company and submitted that no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company.
6. We have read the evidential material and perused the award. We are in general agreement with the conclusion as regards the finding about rashness and negligence of thedriver of the bus, Abdul Rajjak. The Tribunal evaluated the evidence and concluded as under:
'Hence, I hold that there is no rebuttal of the evidence of the claimants with regard to the negligent act of the driver of the bus. There is no reliable proof that the driver of the car was negligent. Accordingly, I hold that Abdul Rajjak was driving the bus at a high speed and negligently. Mohanlal, the deceased, the driver of the car was not driving the car rashly or negligently. Accordingly, I hold that the alleged accident took place on account of the negligent act of the driver of the bus Abdul Rajjak.'
7. The Counsel for the appellants wasunable to point out any error in this conclusion.As we generally agree with this conclusion,supportable by evidential material read by us,we do not find it necessary to reproduce theevidence or reappreciate so as to burden thisorder. This exercise is not necessary in view ofthe decision reported in, Girijanandini Devi andOrs. v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary AIR1967 SC 1124, wherein it is held as under:
'It is not the duty of the Appellate Courtwhen it agrees with the view of the TrialCourt on the evidence to restate the effectof the evidence or to reiterate with reasonsgiven by the Trial Court. Expression ofgeneral agreement with reasons given by theCourt decision of which is under appealwould ordinarily suffice.'
8. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal is right in its conclusion that the accident took place on account of the negligent act of the driver of the bus. The aforesaid Abdul Rajjak drove the bus at the relevant time during, the course of employment of Appellants No. 1 and 2. This finding is thus on firm foundation and challenge is without merit.
9. As regards the level of compensation, we find that in Claim Case No. 11 of 1986 (Misc.Appeal No. 305 of 1991) the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 87,000.00. Deceased Mohanlal was working as a driver with Satyanarayan, owner of the car in question. The Tribunal assessed the dependency of Rs. 4,000.00 per annum and considering the age allowed the compensation of Rs. 60,000.00 as general damages and awarded Rs. 7,000.00 on the head of consortium. The Counsel for the appellants was unable to point out as to how this can be categorised as unjust or improper.
10. In Claim Cases No. 16 of 1986 and 17 of 1986 (Misc. Appeal Nos. 304 of 1991 and 309 of 1991), the Tribunal respectively allowed the compensation of Rs. 1,60,000.00 and Rs. 1,55,000.00, The claimants Pooraima and Pinkesh lost their parents (Kailashchandra and Ushabai) in this accident. Pinkesh was aged one year and Poornima was two and half years only. Both these children were dependent on their parents. The Tribunal found that Kailashchandra was earning Rs. 50,000.00 per year and was spending Rs. 12,000.00 per year on these two children. He was running a shop. The Tribunal assessed the dependency of Rs. 5,000.00 per annum each and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.00 each. The Tribunal also awarded compensation on the head of special damages to the extent of Rs. 35,000/- on account of death of mother, Ushabai. They were also awarded Rs. 5,000.00 each as special damages on account of death of father Kailashchandra. The remaining amount was awarded on the head of medical treatment and other sundry expenses. The level of compensation is not liable to be categorised as excessive. The Counsel for the appellants was unable to point out any error either in approach or quantification. Tribunal also took into account the injuries sustained by the claimants.
11. As regards Claim Case No. 32 of 1986 (Misc. Appeal No. 308 of 1991), the Tribunalawarded sum of Rs. 45,000.00 as compensation. The claimant Ajay Kumar suffered fractures in leg and hand. He was treated at Bombay. He produced the bills, (Exs. P/6 to P/99). Sum of Rs. 27,500.00 was spent in Bombay Hospital. Sum of Rs. 17,500.00 was spent on diet, employment of attendants and journey from Mandsaur to Bombay and Bombay to Mandsaur. In view of the nature of injuries and the expenditure as proved it cannot be said that the amount of compensation is unjust.
12. As regards Claim Case No. 33 of 1986(Misc. Appeal No. 307 of 1991) the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 21,000.00 to injured Sushilabai. It was proved that sum of Rs. 8,900.00 was spent on treatment in Bombay and sum of Rs. 4,100.00 was spent on attendants. Sum of Rs. 2,000.00 was spent on journey. Sum of Rs. 6,000.00 was awarded for pain and suffering. The level is not shown to be unjust.
13. In Claim Case No. 27 of 1986 (Misc. Appeal No. 306 of 1991) only small sum of Rs. 12,000.00 as against the claim of Rs. 48,100.00, was awarded towards the damages caused to the car involved in the accident. This is not shown to be excessive. Admittedly the value of the car on account of accident was reduced to 60%. The value is assessed at Rs. 30,000.00.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the Counsel for the appellants was unable to point out any ground which may warrant interference in these appeals. The appeals are obviously devoid of merit and thus should suffer the fate of dismissal.
15. As regards the cross-objections, we find that the dependency is correctly assessed, quantification is properly done and compensation on the heads like consortium, medical treatment, attendants and other sundry items is properly assessed and allowed.
16. The rules for award of compensation are not in tenebrosity. The Division Bench of this Court in 1970 ACJ 189, Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Ved Mitra vohra and Ors., laid down the following rules for the assessment of damages in case of personal injuries sustained in an accident:
(i) The amount of compensation awarded must be reasonable, and must be assessed with moderation.
(ii) Regard must be had to the awards in comparable cases.
(iii) The sums awarded should be to a considerable extent be conventional.
17. Considering the entire material and the rules, as noted above, we find that the compensation as allowed in all the aforesaid claim cases is just and proper and there is no scope for any enhancement. The cross-objections are thus found to be meritless.
18. As regards the question of fixing liability on Respondent No. 3 (New India Insurance Company), we find that the direction of the Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.
19. On giving our anxious consideration to the submissions urged before us, we find that the appeals and cross-objections merit to be mortalised.
20. Accordingly we dismiss the appeals and cross-objections but leave the parties to bear their own costs of these appeals and cross-objections as incurred. Counsel's fee for both the sides is, however, fixed at Rs. 1,800.00 (oneset), if certified.
21. The appeals and cross-objections are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The record of the Tribunal shall now be returned.
22. This order shall be retained in Misc. Appeal No. 304 and 1991 and one copy each shall be placed, in the record of the other connected five Misc. Appeals for ready reference.