AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dipak Misra, J.
In this appeal preferred u/s 178 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (for brevity ''the Act''), the challenge is to the award dated 14.1.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni. (in short, ''the tribunal'') in Claim Case No.130 of 2004 whereby the tribunal while entertaining the application filed u/s 166 of the Act by the legal representatives of the deceased namely: Vivek Kumar a young boy of 18 years has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,94,500.
The facts which are essential to be stated are that on 9.4.2004 in the evening the deceased. Vivek, was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. MP-21W 0236 from his village Karela near village Kua Keolary a matador bearing registration No.MP-02 4835 being rashly and negligently driven by the driver, the respondent No. 1 before the tribunal dashed against the jeep, as a result of which, the deceased was thrown out from the jeep. As pleaded, the said matador ran over the deceased as a consequence of which his life spark got extinguished. Because of the aforesaid accident, a crime was registered u/s 279, 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the driver. It was the stand of the claimant-respondent that the deceased was 18 years of age and was working in a grocery shop and his monthly income was Rs. 5,000/-. On the aforesaid base, a claim was put forth for grant of compensation for a sum of Rs. 19,52,000/-.
The respondent No. 1, driver filed its written statement contending, interalia, that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver of the jeep and further he had no motive for involvement in the accident. Additionally, it was put forth that the non impleadment of the owner and driver of the jeep vitiated the proceeding.
The respondent No.2 the appellant in the present appeal, filed the objection contending, interalia, that the application was liable to be rejected because of non impleadment of the necessary parties. It was also the stand that deliberately a false case has been concocted against the said authority: namely; Director Agricultural Engineering Department.
The tribunal framed as many as five issues and came to hold that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving by the driver of the matador: that the clamants had been able to prove that the accident had occurred and the deceased had been thrown up from the jeep in question: that the deceased was contributing Rs. 12,000 - per year to the family: that the multiplier of 16 would be applicable keeping in view the age of the parents and that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to make good the award.
Mr. P.N. Dubey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant criticizing the award has submitted that the tribunal has fallen into grave error by saddling the liability on the appellant though the vehicle namely; the jeep had a role to play. It is put forth by him that the deceased was hanging to the jeep and that is how the accident took place and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the driver of the matador was not responsible for causation of the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount granted by the tribunal as compensation is quite high and deserves to be reduced.
Mr. J.L. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted that the finding of the tribunal that the accident was caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the matador is correct and no fault can be found with the same, if the evidence brought on record is properly appreciated. Learned counsel further submitted that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the state is not acceptable inasmuch as the driver of the matador had taken the stand that the vehicle which was driven by him was not involved in the accident. With regard to the quantum, learned counsel has submitted that the analysis made by the tribunal and determination of quantum falls within the just compensation, hence, it does not require interference in this appeal.
The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the vehicle in question was involved in causing of accident. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel has submitted that the deceased was hanging to the jeep, which were over loaded and that is how matador hit on him as result of which he fell on the road. This submission which has been picked up from the hat and built in the air, since the pleadings are quite contrary to such a stance. Quite apart from the above on a perusal of the statement of driver, it is lummicent that he has stated that the matador was not involved in the accident. There is no dispute that the jeep was over loaded and the deceased was hanging in the jeep. It is also worth noting that there has been no suggestion to the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the claimants. It is contended that such a ground has been urged in the memorandum of appeal. We have no hesitation in stating that what had not pleaded and what had not been brought in the evidence cannot be raised before this Court. In view of the aforesaid, we repel the submission of Mr. Dubey in this regard.
Mr. Dubey remained undaunted in his submission that the matador was not at fault and to bolster the said point he has invited our attention to paragraph 7 of the award passed by the tribunal. On a scrutiny of the same, it is noticeable that the tribunal has recorded an unequivocal finding that the driver of the matador came from the wrong side. The deceased fell on the road and died on the spot. The said finding gets support from the evidence brought on record. Hence, the submission put forth by Mr. Dubey on this score is also not acceptable.
We will be failing in our duty if we do not note another facet of submission of Mr. Dubey relating to non proof of negligence. It is contended by him that when the owner and driver of the jeep have not been impleaded, it cannot be held that there has been negligence on the part of the driver of the matador. To buttress the aforesaid submission, he has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Munnidevi and Another Vs. Raj Kumar Singh and Others, . In the aforesaid case, the division bench expressed the opinion that when two vehicles are involved in the accident unless owners and drivers of both the vehicles are impleaded as parties or driver of one of the vehicle enters the witness box, it cannot be determined which vehicle was at fault or both the drivers of vehicle were at fault. We need no dilate much on the said decision inasmuch as in the present case, the driver of the jeep has entered into the witness box as P.W. 2. Suffice it so say, driver of the matador has stated with regard to the non involvement of the accident. In view of the obtaining factual matrix, the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the present case.
Presently, we shall advert ourselves to the quantum. The tribunal has taken note of the factum that the deceased was 18 years of age. It has determined that the contribution of the deceased would be Rs. 1,000/- per month. The tribunal has taken into consideration the age of the mother and applied the multiplier of 16. It is worth noting that the deceased belongs to a village. If the social strata and the rustic background are taken into consideration, there can be no shadow of doubt that he must have been engaged in work as has been accepted by the tribunal and the contribution has been determined. The age of the mother was 42 years and keeping in view the age of the mother, the tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16. The said view gets fructified from the decision rendered in the case of H.S. Ahammad Hussain Vs. Irfan Ahammad (2002) 6 SCC 53.
In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not find any error in fixing of quantum of compensation by the tribunal.
In the result, we do not find any substance in the appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed. However, in the pecuhar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.