Mpsrtc and anr. Vs. Smt. Chandrakanta Alias Chandrakala

Mpsrtc and anr. vs Smt. Chandrakanta Alias Chandrakala

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 31, 1999

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/508724

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/508724
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: J.G. Chitre, J.
Decided On: Jul 31, 1999
Case Number: Misc. Appeal No. 952/97
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 147; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Liability of Insurer - Third party insurance Held, The insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of Chapter XI of the Act, particularly Section 147 thereof. Thus, any person ot...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mpsrtc and anr.

Advocate H.M. Zelawat, Adv.

Respondent

Smt. Chandrakanta Alias Chandrakala

Advocate None

Legal References

Reported In: 2000(2)MPHT190

Excerpt

.....be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4).....orderj.g. chitre, j.1. on 08-05-95, the respondent smt. chandrakanta alias chandrakala, daughter of dhannalal lad was travelling in the bus bearing registration no. mth-7922 belonging to the madhya pradesh state road transport corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'corporation' for convenience). when the said bus was proceeding from indore towards dhar, the tyre of the bus got burst and resultantly the bus dashed against a tree which resulted in injuries to the respondent chandrakanta's lip and on her leg. the lip was cut and on account of that and as per the allegation of chandrakanta, she suffered permanent disfiguration. the tribunal granted compensation to the claimant chandrakanta, to the tune of rs. 26,400/- with interest at the rate of rs. 12/-per cent per annum and that is put to challenge in this appeal.2. shri zelawat, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the injuries sustained by chandrakanta were not serious, grievous and were not causing any disability to her. he prayed that the tribunal should have dismissed the claim petition. if not, the amount should have been reasonable. he prayed for setting aside the said award at least for modifying it.3. the learned member of the tribunal pointed out in para 14 of the judgment that chandrakanta stated in her evidence that on account of said cut to the lip, she had been disfigurated so far as her face is concerned. she also pointed out in her evidence that she is an unmarried woman and putting her service as a teacher. it is her evidence that on account of the injuries sustained on the lip and leg she sustained pain and suffered in medical expenses.4. one has to consider the injury caused to a woman on her face by putting oneself in the place of such a woman. the respondent chandrakanta happens to be a teacher and her age happens to be 51 years. after the injuries which she has sustained, she would be finding it embarrassing to appear in the public. atleast, her face has been disfigured.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

J.G. Chitre, J.

1. On 08-05-95, the respondent Smt. Chandrakanta alias Chandrakala, daughter of Dhannalal Lad was travelling in the bus bearing Registration No. MTH-7922 belonging to the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation' for convenience). When the said bus was proceeding from Indore towards Dhar, the tyre of the bus got burst and resultantly the bus dashed against a tree which resulted in injuries to the respondent Chandrakanta's lip and on her leg. The lip was cut and on account of that and as per the allegation of Chandrakanta, she suffered permanent disfiguration. The Tribunal granted compensation to the claimant Chandrakanta, to the tune of Rs. 26,400/- with interest at the rate of Rs. 12/-per cent per annum and that is put to challenge in this appeal.

2. Shri Zelawat, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the injuries sustained by Chandrakanta were not serious, grievous and were not causing any disability to her. He prayed that the Tribunal should have dismissed the claim petition. If not, the amount should have been reasonable. He prayed for setting aside the said award at least for modifying it.

3. The learned Member of the Tribunal pointed out in para 14 of the judgment that Chandrakanta stated in her evidence that on account of said cut to the lip, she had been disfigurated so far as her face is concerned. She also pointed out in her evidence that she is an unmarried woman and putting her service as a teacher. It is her evidence that on account of the injuries sustained on the lip and leg she sustained pain and suffered in medical expenses.

4. One has to consider the injury caused to a woman on her face by putting oneself in the place of such a woman. The respondent Chandrakanta happens to be a teacher and her age happens to be 51 years. After the injuries which she has sustained, she would be finding it embarrassing to appear in the public. Atleast, her face has been disfigured permanently and that too on account of no fault on her part.

5. It is the duty of the appellant No. 1-Corporation to keep all the buses belonging to it in road-worthy condition. When that bus was put to operation for going to Barwani from Indore via Dhar, it was the duty of the employees of the Corporation to see that every part of the bus was in good condition. A public transport vehicle-owner, driver should not permit himself to be casual and negligent in taking out the vehicle on the road for public cause and for transporting the goods or the passengers without ascertaining its road worthiness. If any part of the vehicle gives the way, he has to be ready to suffer the consequences, if on account of non-worthiness of such vehicle, passenger travelling through it suffers an injury, which would cause a permanent disfiguration of the face, lip or the body of any passenger. He has to shoulder the responsibility of compensating such passenger. When that passenger happens to be a woman, that compensation should be adequate enough to compensate her so far as disfiguration of her face is concerned. The age of the victim in this context does not play much important role because every human being, more probably a female being wants that her face should be good looking. Therefore, the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- granted to the respondent on account of disfiguration of her face on account of cut of the lip is quite proper and in no way excessive. Rs. 1,000/- granted for pain and suffering as well as medical expenses are also not excessive. Interest allowed @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition is also not excessive.

6. In the result, this appeal fails and thus, stands dismissed with costs.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1999 Same Parties Mpsrtc and anr. vs Smt. Chandrakanta Alias Chandrakala Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge J.G. Chitre, J.

Motor Vehicles