CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2003) 02 MP CK 0022

Meena Devi and Others vs Laharchand and Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 4 February 2003 · Citation: (2005) ACJ 379

HON’BLE JUDGES
Nirmal Kumar Jain, J · Deepak Verma, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M.A. No''s. 622 of 1998 and 796 of 1999 & M.A. No. 623 of 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 378 words

Deepak Verma and N.K. Jain, JJ.—For permanent disability suffered by appellant Meena Devi in a motor accident involving a Maruti car, as also a truck, the Tribunal below while assessing the compensation at Rs. 60,000 awarded only Rs. 30,000 as compensation to the appellant.

2.

The said amount of Rs. 60,000 was reduced by 50 per cent on the ground that the driver of Maruti car in which the appellant was also travelling, was equally responsible for the said accident.

3.

We are afraid, the approach of the Tribunal was wholly contrary to law. The appellant herself was not the driver of Maruti car and, no negligence, therefore, could be attributed to her. The reduction of amount on the ground of contributory negligence was, thus, wholly unwarranted.

4.

Counsel for the appellant has also assailed the computation of compensation done by the Tribunal below. Admittedly, appellant suffered permanent disability, inasmuch as, the accident caused permanent disfiguration on her face and fracture of mandible bone. Her 4 teeth were also dislocated.

5.

In fact, the Tribunal itself assessed the medical expenses at Rs. 48,500 and only a meagre sum of Rs. 11,500 was awarded towards the said disability.

6.

In our considered judgment, a sum of Rs. 26,500 ought to be awarded towards permanent disability, thus making the total compensation to Rs. 75,000 with no reduction on account of alleged contributory negligence.

7.

It may be noted here that the State Government has also been made liable to the extent of 20 per cent as according to the Tribunal, the offending truck at the relevant time was in custody of police.

8.

The appeal filed by the State Government against this direction, has already been dismissed by this court.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant succeeds to the extent indicated above and the amount of compensation is raised to Rs. 75,000 which shall be borne by the owner, insurance company and the State Government in the proportion already indicated by the Claims Tribunal below. The difference in amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application, till it is actually paid to the claimant.

10.

There shall be, however, no order as to costs.