Virendra Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar and anr.

Virendra Kumar vs Sunil Kumar and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 26, 1993

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/508088

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/508088
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: A.R. Tiwari, J.
Decided On: Oct 26, 1993
Subject: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MADHYA PRADESH UCHCHA NYAYALAYA (KHAND NYAYPEETH KO APPEAL) ADHINIYAM (14 OF 2006)Section 2 & M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957, Section 12: [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Appeal to Division Bench against judgment of Single Judge - Application for restoration/revival of Letters Patent Appeal under Cla...

Key legal issue: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Virendra Kumar

Advocate Shri. P.S. Hada

Respondent

Sunil Kumar and anr.

Advocate Shri. M.L. Dhupar

Legal References

Cases Referred: Shamsher Khan v. M.P. Elect. Board
Reported In: II(1994)ACC282

Excerpt

- madhya pradesh uchcha nyayalaya (khand nyaypeeth ko appeal) adhiniyam (14 of 2006)section 2 & m.p. general clauses act, 1957, section 12: [a.k. patnaik, cj, s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] appeal to division bench against judgment of single judge - application for restoration/revival of letters patent appeal under clause 10 - held, the legal effect of the 1981 adhiniyam was that with effect from 1st july 1981, all appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent were abolished except appeals which were pending before high court on date immediately preceding date of commencement of 1981 adhiniyam on 1st july 1981. it will be clear from sub-section 92) of section 1 of the 2005 adhiniyam that the 2005 adhiniyam was to come into force with retrospective effect from first day of july, 1981 i.e., with effect from the date from which the appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent were abolished by the 1981 adhiniyam. it will be further clear from section 2 of the 2005 adhiniyam that under the 2005 adhiniyam, appeal was provided for only from a judgment and order passed by a single judge in exercise of original jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india to a division bench comprising of two judges of the high court and no appeal was provided for from the judgment and order passed by a single judge of high court in exercise of any other jurisdiction of the high court. it will also be clear from section 4 of the 2005 adhiniyam that sub-section (1) of section 4 repealed the 1981 adhiniyam. therefore by the repeal of the 1981 adhiniyam by section 4(1) of 2005 adhiniyam, appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent against judgment and decree passed by the single judge in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 96 of the code of civil procedure would not be revived as 2005 adhiniyam does not provide for any such revival. a reading of section 12 of the m.p. general clauses act, 1957, would show that the legislature must expressly state that the repealed act..........of rs. 7000/- to the appellant together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. the claimant felt dis-satisfied by the quantum levelling is as thoroughly inadequate. he has, therefore, preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.2. briefly stated the facts of the case are that at the relevant time i.e. at 5.30 p.m. on 15.3.1980, respondent no. 1 sunil kumar drove his motor cycle bearing registration no. cpf 5922 rashly any negligently. this vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3. the respondent no. 1 hit smt. phulbai, the mother of the appellant, whereby she sustained number of injuries. she was taken to the hospital but soon enough she succumbed to the injuries. the husband of phulbai and her son filed the claim petition before the tribunal for compensation of rs. 51,000/-. this claim was resisted by the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3. the respondent no. 1 is also shown as the respondent no. 2 in the capacity of driver of the vehicle. in other words, the respondent no. 1 was the owner as well as driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. on evaluation of the evidence, the tribunal passed the award of rs. 7,000/- as under-rs. 1,000/- towards agony and suffering.rs. 2,000/- towards expenses in obsequies.rs. 4,000/- towards compensation.3. the husband of the victim phulbai, jagannath died and as such his name was deleted. aggrieved by,the inadequacy of the compensation, the son of the victim phulbai, virendra kumar has preferred this appeal.4. i have heard shri p.s. hada, learned counsel for the appellant and shri m.l. dhupar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. none appeared for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.5. shri hada submitted that the amount of compensation as awarded by the court below was grossly inadequate and deserves to be suitably augmented. he also submitted that the interest as allowed is also too low. shri dhupar on the other hand, submitted that the accident occured on 15.3.1980. according to him, there was no justification in.....

Full Judgment

A.R. Tiwari, J.

1. This Misc. Appeal presented under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the Award dated 30th June, 1982 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 65/80 whereby the respondents were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 7000/- to the appellant together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The claimant felt dis-satisfied by the quantum levelling is as thoroughly inadequate. He has, therefore, preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that at the relevant time i.e. at 5.30 p.m. on 15.3.1980, respondent No. 1 Sunil Kumar drove his motor cycle bearing registration No. CPF 5922 rashly any negligently. This vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 1 hit Smt. Phulbai, the mother of the appellant, whereby she sustained number of injuries. She was taken to the hospital but soon enough she succumbed to the injuries. The husband of Phulbai and her son filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 51,000/-. This claim was resisted by the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 1 is also shown as the respondent No. 2 in the capacity of driver of the vehicle. In other words, the respondent No. 1 was the owner as well as driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. On evaluation of the evidence, the Tribunal passed the award of Rs. 7,000/- as under-

Rs. 1,000/- towards agony and suffering.

Rs. 2,000/- towards expenses in obsequies.

Rs. 4,000/- towards compensation.

3. The husband of the victim Phulbai, Jagannath died and as such his name was deleted. Aggrieved by,the inadequacy of the compensation, the son of the victim Phulbai, Virendra Kumar has preferred this appeal.

4. I have heard Shri P.S. Hada, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri M.L. Dhupar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3. None appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

5. Shri Hada submitted that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Court below was grossly inadequate and deserves to be suitably augmented. He also submitted that the interest as allowed is also too low. Shri Dhupar on the other hand, submitted that the accident occured on 15.3.1980. According to him, there was no justification in passing the award even of Rs. 7,000/- and as such he submitted that there was no justification in making alteration in either the level of amount or rate of interest.

6. It is seen that factum of accident and the liability are not in dispute. The only limited question falling for determination in this appeal is as to whether the level of amount as awarded and rate of interest as fixed were just and reasonable.

7. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent in nature. Section 92-A was enacted for the benefit of the victim so that the claim is not rendered teemless even in case of no fault liability'. This statutory innovation for payment of compensation even on the basis of' no fault liability' that owed its origin to the judicial clamour, rests at the proper level.

8. In 1988 ACJ (1) 394 Shamsher Khan v. M.P. Elect. Board this Court took the view that the principles of Section 92-A can appropriately be applied even to the cases occurring prior to the date of introduction of such provision.

9. In the instant case, I find that the husband of the victim died just after 1 1/2 years from date of unfortunate death of his wife in the accident. At the relevant time, she was aged 50 years. She was not employed any where and was not even wage earner. It was proper to look to the provisions contained in Section 92-A of the Act while assessing the amount of compensation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spirit behind Section 92-A of the Act, I find that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- would be just and reasonable compensation. I also find that the rate of interest should be enhanced from 6% p.a. In the circumstances, I allow this appeal in part and direct the modification of the award as under:

(a) The respondents shall pay the amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the appellant as compensation instead of Rs. 7,000/-.

(b) The respondents shall pay the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from the date of application i.e. 10.9.1980 till the date of realisation.

(c) The respondents are also directed to bear their own costs of this appeal and also to pay costs of the appellant as incurred in this appeal.

10. Counsel's fee on each side on certification is fixed at Rs. 500/-.

11. This appeal is, therefore, allowed partly in terms indicated above. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly.

12. The record of the Court below is now directed to be returned.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1993 Same Parties Virendra Kumar vs Sunil Kumar and anr. Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge A.R. Tiwari, J.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles