Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sugha Singh - Court Judgment

R.C. Lahoti, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by M.P. State Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by an award under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The claimant respondent No. 1 has been awarded an amount of Rs. 42500/- with interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realisation.

2. It is an admitted fact that passenger bus bearing No. MPW 9762, owned by appellant Corporation, driven by the respondent No. 2 met with an accident on 25.7.84 injuring the claimant/respondent No. 1. It has not been dispute, not could it have been disputed at this stage, that respondent No. 1 aged 14 years on the date of the incident, was seriously injured in the incident His both legs sustained injuries.

Injuries to the left leg were more serious in nature. His ankle joint was severely damaged and ultimately the left leg had to be amputated from above the knee joint

3. The case of the claimant was that the cause of the accident was negligent driving of the driver while the Corporation laid the responsibility on the claimant himself by asserting that he negligently ran across the road having seen the approaching bus which resulted in the accident It was also pleaded that there was a mechanical failure in the bus.

4. The Tribunal found that the cause of the accident was the negligence of the driver. In calculating the amount of damages the Tribunal found that an amount of Rs. 15000/- was incurred on account of medicines, medical fees, special diet and other expenses of the treatment An amount of Rs. 18000/- has been awarded as general damages by holding that the claimant's capacity to earn was reduced by Rs. 100/- per month. An amount of Rs. 10000/- was awarded as compensation for mental pain and suffering of the victim. There from an amount of Rs. 500/- awarded ex-gratia by the appellant to the victim, was reduced.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that if the evidence were properly appreciated it should have been held that the negligence of the claimant himself was the cause of the accident and hence nothing could have been awarded against the appellant. It is further submitted in the alternative that the awarded amount of compensation is excessive. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that both the contentions deserve to be rejected.

6. Upon an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal has found that the claimant was sitting in a field by the side of a culvert The bus in question dashed against the side-wall of the culvert and ran astray hitting the claimant The Tribunal has accepted the direct testimony of the injured which was supported by the testimony of two other eye-witnesses to the incident In rebuttal the sole testimony of the driver was found to be not worthy of credence because the story as narrated by him was found to be most unnatural. The approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner whatsoever. The theory of mechanical failure was discarded because there was nothing to prove that the vehicle was not road-worthy prior to the time of the accident. The very fact that the vehicle dashed against the side wall of the culvert and ran amuck hitting the claimant sitting in a field speaks for itself that there was negligence on the part of the driver.

7. As to the amount of Rs. 15000/- awarded as special damages, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there is no documentary evidence to support the finding as to quantum of expenses incurred. It is true that bills and vouchers have not been produced in support of proof as to the expenses incurred by the claimant However, mere nonproduction of bills and vouchers cannot by itself be a ground for discarding the claim as to expenses incurred. It will all depend on the facts of each case. The family of the claimant is one of rustic villagers. They cannot be expected to maintain accounts and to be careful about insisting on bills and vouchers for every payment made by them. The injured claimant had to remain confined to J. A. Hospital for a period of about four months. Thereafter be remained confined in nursing home for a period of about two months. Several documents such as Ex. P/1, P/2, P/4 and P/S, relating to treatment and operations undergone by the victim claimant go to show that his left tibia and fabula were both fractured and ankle joint severely injured. He had to undergo amputation of the left leg in stages. Skin grafting had also to be done. It does not sound unnatural that in a period of 6 months he must have been required to incur expenditure of Rs. 15000/- on special diet, medicines, medical and surgeon's fee and nursing home charges. The finding cannot be disturbed more so when it has been recorded by assigning valid reasons. The quantum of Rs. 10000/- awarded as compensation for mental pain and suffering cannot at all be termed excessive looking to the severe agony under which the young boy remained for a period of 6 months in J.A. Hospital and nursing home.

8. As to amount of Rs. 10000/- awarded for compensation for physical incapacity incurred by the claimant, all that can be said is that if at all it is faulty then it is because of being for too meagre a sum. The learned Counsel for the claimant/respondent has rightly placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Pushpa Thakur v. Union of India and Anr. 1984 A.C.J. 559 where the accident having resulted in fracture of both legs and amputation of the right leg, the figure of compensation was fixed at Rs. 1, 00, 000/- and a Division Bench of this Court in Mukhtyar v. M.P.S.R.T.C. 1982 II-M. P. W.N, 200 where in a case of amputation of leg, a figure of Rs. 50, 000/- was held as one which should have been awarded as just compensation. In the present case, the boy comes from a rustic family. He was studying in a school. In spite of the ill-fate, he continued to prosecute his studies and was studying ' in IIth class when examined by the Tribunal. He was surely displaying a promising career ahead which would surely be affected adversely by total amputation of left leg, an essential limb which would not even artificially restore the natural efficiency which the victim would have otherwise possessed. His ' marriage prospects would also be adversely affected. In such circumstances, the assessment made by the Tribunal was certainly a Conservative one.

9. Looked from any angle, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant praying for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded cannot be entertained for a moment.

10. The appeal is without any substance. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/.