Babulal Vs. Devraj

Babulal vs Devraj

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 30, 1993

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/508192

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/508192
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: A.R. Tiwari, J.
Decided On: Mar 30, 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

Babulal

Advocate Shri. H.S. Rajpal

Respondent

Devraj

Advocate Shri. S.K. Vyas

Legal References

Cases Referred: C) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi
Reported In: II(1994)ACC382

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..........30.3.1990 rendered by member, motor accidents claims tribunal in claim case no. 75/88, thereby allowing the compensation of rs. 2150/-. the appellant/claimant is dissatisfied by the quantum and prays for suitable enhancement.2. briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 3 was the owner of jeep no. mbd 703. at the relevant time respondent no. 1 was the driver on this jeep. this vehicle was insured with respondent no. 2. it is alleged that the respondent no. 1 drove this vehicle rashly and negligently on 22.7.1988 at about 7.30 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. the claimant was going on his bicycle. the jeep hit the bicycle as a result of which, the claimant/appellant sustained numerous injuries in this accident. he, therefore, filed a claim petition and claimed compensation of rs. 32050/-. the respondent opposed the claim and pleaded that they were not liable to pay any amount. on evaluation of the evidence, the tribunal awarded the compensation of rs. 2150/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of application (13.9.1988) till realisation as follows:rs. 300.00 towards treatment;rs. 300.00 towards loss of earning'rs. 1500.00 towards damages;rs. 50.00 towards repair of cycle._______rs. 2150.00 total_______3. the claimant feeling dissatisfied by the quantum of the compensation has filed this appeal seeking suitable enhancement.4. i have heard shri h.s. rajpal learned counsel for the appellant and shri s.k. vyas learned counsel for respondent no. 2 (united india insurance co. ltd. indore)5. shir h.s. rajpal submitted that the amount of compensation is evidently too low and deserves to be augmented in conformity with comparable cases. he placed reliance on the decision in hardeo kaur and ors. v. rajasthan state road transport corporation and anr. reported in : [1992]2scr272 .6. i now turn to facts. at the time of accident, the appellant was aged 60 years. on sustaining injuries he had become unconscious. pw. 1 dr. yashwant kumar vyas, has.....

Full Judgment

A.R. Tiwari, J.

1. This appeal presented under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 30.3.1990 rendered by Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in claim Case No. 75/88, thereby allowing the compensation of Rs. 2150/-. The appellant/claimant is dissatisfied by the quantum and prays for suitable enhancement.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 was the owner of Jeep No. MBD 703. At the relevant time respondent No. 1 was the driver on this Jeep. This vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1 drove this vehicle rashly and negligently on 22.7.1988 at about 7.30 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. The claimant was going on his bicycle. The Jeep hit the bicycle as a result of which, the claimant/appellant sustained numerous injuries in this accident. He, therefore, filed a claim petition and claimed compensation of Rs. 32050/-. The respondent opposed the claim and pleaded that they were not liable to pay any amount. On evaluation of the evidence, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 2150/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of application (13.9.1988) till realisation as follows:

Rs. 300.00 towards treatment;Rs. 300.00 towards loss of earning'Rs. 1500.00 towards damages;Rs. 50.00 towards repair of cycle._______Rs. 2150.00 Total_______

3. The claimant feeling dissatisfied by the quantum of the compensation has filed this appeal seeking suitable enhancement.

4. I have heard Shri H.S. Rajpal learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri S.K. Vyas learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Indore)

5. Shir H.S. Rajpal submitted that the amount of compensation is evidently too low and deserves to be augmented in conformity with comparable cases. He placed reliance on the decision in Hardeo Kaur and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Reported in : [1992]2SCR272 .

6. I now turn to facts. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 60 years. On sustaining injuries he had become unconscious. PW. 1 Dr. Yashwant Kumar Vyas, has proved injuries and has also stated that the appellant was hospitalised between 22.7.88 and 28.7.88. He sustained several injuries on various parts of the body. PW 2 Kanta Prasad has proved manner of accident. PW. 3 Babulal (appellant) has proved loss of income. He was engaged in milk business. PW 4 Ram Prasad Sunhare, stated about level of income. There is no evidence in rebuttal.

7. In 1980 ACJ 55 (SC) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi it is held as under--

The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.

8. In the decision relied upon by Shri H.S. Rajpal the compensation of Rs. 5000/- in case of multiple abrasions on various parts of the body, was considered to be just and reasonable.

9. Apart from the inadequacy of compensation in the category of general damages, I find that the amount awarded towards treatment and loss of income is also too low.

10. Taking overall view of the evidence and attending circumstances, I find it proper to modify the Award as under:

Rs. 1000.00 towards medical treatment;Rs. 500.00 towards loss of income;Rs. 5000.00 towards general damages;Rs. 50.00 towards repair of bicycle.__________Rs. 6550.00 Total__________

11. In the ultimate analysis, this appeal is allowed in part. The respondents are, thus, directed to pay to the appellant/claimant the sum of Rs. 6550/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of application (13.9.1988) till realisation.

12. The respondent No. 3 shall bear its own costs and shall also pay the costs of the appellant. The Counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 750/- if certified.

13. The record of the Tribunal shall now be returned.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1993 Same Parties Babulal vs Devraj Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge A.R. Tiwari, J.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles