Kushal and anr. Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. and ors.

Kushal and anr. vs Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. and ors.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 30, 2000

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/510425

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/510425
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;A.K. Mishra, J.
Decided On: Mar 30, 2000
Case Number: M.A. No. 257 of 1996
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

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

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055. Article 141; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Ful...

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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kushal and anr.

Advocate Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal

Respondent

Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 2002ACJ102

Excerpt

.....manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under article 227 of the constitution of india. it would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single judge. the pleadings also assume immense significance. it would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of articles 226 and 227 of the constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. in this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that article 226 of the constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. it will depend upon factual matrix of each case. dr. jaidev siddha v. jaiprakash siddha, 2007(2) mpjr (fb) 361: air 2007 mp 269 (fb) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of slp preferred against order reported in rama and company v. state of madhya pradesh [2007 (2) mpjr 229 (db) (mp)]. - (ii) remaining fifty per cent as well as the sum of rs......learned counsel for parties, we are of the opinion that the case has not been correctly decided by the tribunal. evidence shows that the deceased was earning rs. 100 per day. out of this, he was spending a sum of rs. 50 on his family. this evidence has not been rebutted by the other side. therefore, dependency has to be taken as rs. 50 per day: rs. 1,500 per month: rs. 18,000 per annum. in this case reasonable multiplier should be 17. thus the amount of compensation comes to rs. 3,06,000 (rs. 1,500.00 x 12 x 17). in addition, the claimants shall be entitled to rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses. ahilyabai is the widow of deceased. at the time of accident, she was 19 years old. at this young age, she lost her husband due to negligence of the respondent no. 2. she is deprived of the company of her husband. consequently she is entitled to the consortium and, therefore, she is entitled to a sum of rs. 5,000 under this head, taking the total compensation to rs. 3,13,000 (rupees three lakh thirteen thousand only) payable with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. the amount of compensation awarded is ordered to be paid in the following ratio:(i) fifty per cent of rs. 3,08,000 along with interest to: (1) kushal s/o chhedi satnami and (2) daiyabai w/o kushal satnami, appellants.(ii) remaining fifty per cent as well as the sum of rs. 5,000 awarded under the head of consortium with interest to the respondent no. 3 ahilyabai, widow of ram kumar.the aforesaid amount of compensation shall be paid within a period of two months from today, otherwise it will carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment.7. appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.

Full Judgment

Bhawani Singh, C.J.

1. This appeal challenges the award dated 17.1.1996 of the IV Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli in Claim Case No. 7 of 1994.

2. On 1.4.1994, deceased Ram Kumar, aged 30, was crossing the road for going towards Daupara Mungeli Booking Office for getting ticket. At that time, the bus bearing No. MKH 7551 belonging to the respondent M.P. State Road Transport Corporation driven by Raghuraj Singh, driver, in a rash and negligent manner had struck against the deceased Ram Kumar. As a result, Ram Kumar died on the spot. The matter was reported to the police and first information report No. 84 of 1994 was registered and challan filed for offence under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code.

3. At the time of accident, deceased was 30 years old, his parents were dependent on him, he was married, so also his wife. He was doing the business of repair of radios and televisions and was earning Rs. 100 per day and on account of death of Ram Kumar, the claimants have been rendered without livelihood. Father of the deceased is 60 years old while mother is 55 and widow Ahilyabai is 19. It was contended that due to the death of Ram Kumar, the family has sustained big loss; therefore, they are claiming Rs. 1,00,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 6,10,000 for loss of income taking to total of Rs. 7,20,000.

4. The claim has been opposed and it is stated in defence that the claimants were not dependent upon the deceased, he was not earning Rs. 100 per day, he died due to his negligence; driver was driving the vehicle carefully, medical expenditure of Rs. 10,000 is not correct and that the deceased could not earn for thirty years. The Tribunal held that the bus in question was being driven rashly and negligently and it hit the deceased resulting into his death. Accordingly, the Tribunal worked out the total compensation of Rs. 1,55,000 and passed the award of compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of award. Being aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, appearing for the appellants submits that the award does not pay just compensation to the claimants and, therefore, it is liable to be modified and the amount of compensation increased. Learned counsel submits that dependency has not been correctly arrived at nor proper multiplier has been applied. It is also submitted that payment of interest from the date of award is not correct and it ought to have been given from the date of application till the date of payment. These submissions have been repudiated by Mr. Yogesh Dhande, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has assessed just compensation after application of proper multiplier. The award is, therefore, correct and does not warrant any modification.

6. After considering the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for parties, we are of the opinion that the case has not been correctly decided by the Tribunal. Evidence shows that the deceased was earning Rs. 100 per day. Out of this, he was spending a sum of Rs. 50 on his family. This evidence has not been rebutted by the other side. Therefore, dependency has to be taken as Rs. 50 per day: Rs. 1,500 per month: Rs. 18,000 per annum. In this case reasonable multiplier should be 17. Thus the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,06,000 (Rs. 1,500.00 x 12 x 17). In addition, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses. Ahilyabai is the widow of deceased. At the time of accident, she was 19 years old. At this young age, she lost her husband due to negligence of the respondent No. 2. She is deprived of the company of her husband. Consequently she is entitled to the consortium and, therefore, she is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000 under this head, taking the total compensation to Rs. 3,13,000 (Rupees three lakh thirteen thousand only) payable with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. The amount of compensation awarded is ordered to be paid in the following ratio:

(i) Fifty per cent of Rs. 3,08,000 along with interest to: (1) Kushal s/o Chhedi Satnami and (2) Daiyabai w/o Kushal Satnami, appellants.

(ii) Remaining fifty per cent as well as the sum of Rs. 5,000 awarded under the head of consortium with interest to the respondent No. 3 Ahilyabai, widow of Ram Kumar.

The aforesaid amount of compensation shall be paid within a period of two months from today, otherwise it will carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment.

7. Appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2000 Same Parties Kushal and anr. vs Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. an... Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;A.K. Mishra, J.

Motor Vehicles