M.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Nagendra Nath Shrivastava and Another

Faizanuddin, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), preferred by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ''Corporation'') against the award dated 4th October, 1980, made by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa, in Claim Case No. 4 of 1979.

The claimant respondent No. 1, at the relevant time, was a school teacher at Bela in the District of Rewa, on 29th July, 1978, at about 12.30 p.m. when the claimant-respondent No. 1 was resulting on his bicycle from Bela to Rewa, the respondent No. 2 Sujan Singh Thakur who was in the employment of the appellant-Corporation as a driver came from opposite direction driving a chassis belonging to the appellant and dashed against the respondent No. 2 causing his serious personal injuries and damaged to his cycle. The respondent No. 1 made a claim to the tune of Rs. 74,583/- against the appellant as well as against its driver respondent No. 2, by contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of chassis by respondent No. 2 at a very high speed causing a permanent disability to the respondent No. 1 as he was unable to walk without a stick or crutches. The said claim was resisted by the appellant and his driver, respondent No. 2, by contending that the respondent No. 2 was not driving his vehicle rashly or neligently and the claim was exaggerated. The Tribunal took the view that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of chassis by respondent No. 2 causing bodily injury to the respondent No. 1 and permanent disability as well as damaged to his cycle. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded a total sum of Rs. 14,550/- to the respondent No. 1 as damages under various heads against which this appeal has been directed.

Llearned Counsel for the appellant did not dispute the accident bat challenged the award of Rs. 8,000/- for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. He submitted that an award of Rs. 3,000/- for pain and suffering and sum of Rs. 3,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life is not justified. On perusal of the record, I find that the contention is without any legal force and therefore, deserves to be rejected.

The evidence of Dr. R.C. Singh A.W. 1) reveals that the respondent No. 1 had sustained injuries on right glutial region besides the other injuries on other parts of his body. The claimant bad to be operated upon for his injuries in the glutial region and that for this injury the respondent had suffered paralysis of his right sciatic nerve due to which he could neither bend his knee properly nor could stretch his foot completely. In the opinion of the doctor, this disability was of permanent character because in a thousand cases of this nature there was a chance of a single case for complete cure. The evidence also indicated that the claimant could walk by limping with a support of a stick. The evidence, further, goes to show that the claimant was hospitalised for about three weeks and continued to take the treatment even after he was discharged and was in a position to join his duties only on 5-10-1978. This evidence explicitly goes to show that the claimant was subjected to great pain and suffering and due to permanent disability in his right leg, be was unable to walk without the help of a stick or crutches. He was, thus, deprived of natural enjoyment of his life at the age of 48. In these circumstances, in my view award of Rs. 3000/- for pain and suffering and of Rs. 3000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life cannot be said to be unjust or excessive. The said award in my considered opinion is just and fair and calls for no interference in appeal.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fees as per schedule, if certified.