Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Harbhajansingh and ors. - Court Judgment

R.D. Shukla, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 11, 1982, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ujjain, passed in Claim Case No. 1 of 1978, whereby the claimant-appellant has been awarded a lesser amount of Rs. 7,000 for the damage caused to the bus Owned by the claimant-appellant during the accident dated June 28, 1977, at 11 a.m. on Shajapur-Ujjain Road.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that Harbhajansingh is the owner of truck No. M. P. 3064 and respondent No. 2, Mehboobkhan, was the driver at the relevant time, and on the date of the accident he was going from Ujjain to Shajapur.

3. Motor-bus No. MPO 9566 was owned by the claimant-appellant, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. It was coming from the opposite direction. There was a collision between the truck and the bus. The truck was insured with respondent No. 3. It is alleged that the alleged collision and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 2. The front portion of the motor-bus was smashed and the loss was estimated to the tune of Rs. 50,000.

4. The claimant-appellant, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, filed an application before the Tribunal on January 2, 1978, and claimed Rs. 50,000 as damages.

5. The respondents denied the claim. However, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the truck by the truck-driver, Mehboobkhan. It was also found that there was damage to the motor-bus belonging to the claimant-appellant. The damage, as such, was estimated to the tune of Rs. 7,000 and award of the same amount has been granted.

6. Now, this appeal has been filed for the enhancement of the amount of award.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has substituted its own opinion in place of the expert's opinion and has underestimated the damage caused to the motor-bus.

8. It has further been submitted that on a bare perusal of the statement of the expert and the photographs showing the collision, the damage to the bus appears to be extensive.

9. As against it learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the accident occurred nearly fifteen years ago. Things were much cheaper at that time and, therefore, the award of Rs. 7,000 was just and proper. The fact of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2, Mehboobkhan, has not been challenged as respondent No. 1, owner of the truck, and respondent No. 2, driver, have not contested the appeal. Now, therefore, the only point for consideration is that as to whether the amount of the award is just and proper.

10. The claimant-appellant has examined AW4, Ajay Gupta, AW-2, K.P. Raghav, (Stores Inspecting Officer), AW-3, Yogesh Bhawalkar (Chief Mechanical Engineer), AW-4, Rameshwar Dethaliya and AW-5, Karansingh, who are said to be independent witnesses and have seen the accident.AW-7, Bibi Bai, AW-8, Shankarlal, have been examined to prove the death of Ibrahim Khan in the accident. AW-9, Bakhtarbus, the driver of the motor-bus, has also been examined to support the contention of rash and negligent driving.

11. The respondents have examined NAW-1, Amarnath Akhand, the insurance surveyor and loss assessor, NAW-2, Basant Kumar Ram, in support of their contentions.

12. On a perusal of the photographs, exhibits A-1 to P-16, that has been proved by AW-1, it appears that there was extensive damage to the front portion of the motor-bus.

13. AW-2 has stated the damage to the front part of the engine and body of the motor-bus. AW-3, Yogesh Bhawalkar, who was the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has proved the estimate of toss, exhibit P-18, and has stated the loss to the tune of Rs. 45,638.15. Nothing substantial has been brought against the contention of this witness during the cross-examination. He is a senior officer of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. He had no personal interest in the matter and, therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve this witness.

14. Though, it is true that A.W.3, Bhawalkar, was under the service of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, that is a corporation and a public sector undertaking. Shri Bhawalkar has nothing to gain personally by overestimating the loss.

15. NAW-1, Amarnath, has stated that he examined the letters, exhibits P-17 and P-18, regarding the loss and damage to the motor-bus. He has admitted in paragraphs 12 and 16 of his statement that the loss caused to the motor-bus was to the tune of nearly Rs. 15,000.

16. Learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration this admission of the witness for the respondents. Though it is true that the opinion of the expert is neither binding nor conclusive, they are required to be given credence unless there are strong reasons to differ from it. Courts and Tribunals are not required to substitute their own opinion in place of the opinion of the expert without strong and sufficient reasons therefor. Learned Tribunal has not given cogent reasons for differing from the opinion of the two experts.

17. NAW-1 has been examined by respondents and, therefore, the respondents are bound by the statement of their own witness.

18. It is a matter of common knowledge that if extensive damage to the engine and the front part of the vehicle is caused because of the head-on collision of two vehicles of similar nature, the damaged vehicle will not come to its own condition existing prior to the accident despite best efforts.

19. The learned Tribunal has rejected the contention of the claimants merely on the ground that the register showing the depreciated value of the motor-bus has not been produced. It is true a register of that nature ought to have been produced before the Tribunal. It is also expected that a body corporate like the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation must be maintaining the records of every vehicle showing its depreciated value. But, in view of the statement of NAW-1, Amarnath Akhand, the loss to the vehicle cannot be estimated below Rs. 15,000. Though there is nothing to disbelieve Shri Bhawalkar, Chief Mechanical Engineer, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, in the absence of the register of the vehicles maintained by the claimant-appellant, an adverse inference can be drawn and, therefore, his statement cannot be accepted in toto.

20. In view of the above discussion, the award given by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and it deserves to be enhanced.

21. As a result, the appeal succeeds. The claimant-appellant is awarded Rs. 15,000 for the loss to the vehicle. Respondent No. 3 shall pay the said amount to the claimant-appellant with interest at 12 per cent. per annum from the date of the accident till the date of payment. The respondents shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs of the appellant-claimant. Counsel fee Rs. 500 if certified.