State of Madhya Pradesh and Another vs Jayshree Joshi and Others

Bhawani Singh, C.J.

This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sehore, in M.C.C. No. 80 of 2000, dated 19.2.2001.

Jayshree Joshi (now deceased), was employed with appellants. On 15.11.1999, at about 4.45 p.m., Rajendra Prasad Temle, driver of the appellants, was driving jeep No. MPZ 9133. While negotiating the railway crossing, the trolley attached to the jeep got detached. Jayshree Joshi, who was going to her residence, got panicky and fell down on the road. However, she was hit by the trolley. Due to this accident, she suffered injuries on her leg, right hand, chest, mouth and other parts of the body. She was admitted in the hospital for treatment of the injuries. In this accident, she lost one of her teeth. She had to engage a servant against monthly payment to look after her. As a result of the injuries, she became permanently incapacitated and claimed compensation of Rs. 16,00,000 from the appellants.

Case of the appellants was that the accident had not taken place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle which was not being driven at a high speed, because there were speed breakers on both sides of the railway crossing. It is admitted that Jayshree Joshi was hit by the trolley which got detached. The injuries suffered by her were simple in nature and she worked efficiently as before after treatment. The expenses incurred by her in the treatment were reimbursed by her department.

Claims Tribunal held that the jeep was being driven rashly and negligently which hit the deceased Jayshree Joshi resulting in serious injuries to her. Ultimately compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 has been awarded carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Appellants are not satisfied with this award, therefore, it has been challenged through this appeal.

Record of the case perused. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.

Mr. G.S. Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate, submits vehemently that award of compensation is grossly heavy, therefore, it deserves to be reduced. In order to sustain the submissions, learned Counsel contended that Jayshree Joshi was cured of the injuries suffered by her and she started working quite efficiently. As per doctor, the disability was 36 per cent. Therefore, payment of compensation to this extent is not called for. For medical treatment, the expenditure has been reimbursed by her department and absence of leave has been sanctioned.

We are not in agreement with the submissions of Mr. Ahluwalia. Careful reading of the evidence clearly demonstrates that Jayshree Joshi suffered large number of injuries on various parts of her body in addition to two multiple fractures in the leg and right hand. She has stated that bones of the leg were shattered into pieces and she was advised operations of hand and leg for which a piece of bone had to be taken from her back. For number of months, the treatment continued and when she appeared in court during the hearing of the case, her state of health was noticed by the Claims Tribunal which found that her right hand and leg had become absolutely unfit for use, thereby confirming her statement that taking away of the bone from the back for the leg had caused pain. Upper part of the body had become absolutely unfit. Standing or sitting results in movement of bone in the leg. She cannot move as before, nor her leg has the same shape. She cannot stand. Her hand has become unfit. Neither she can work, nor can write. She cannot lift heavy objects with her right hand. While washing her head, she feels pain in hand. She cannot move and sit on chair without assistance and has to take the help of stick. Before the accident, she used to do all the work on her own, but after the accident, she has to engage a servant against payment of Rs. 800 to Rs. 900 per month. She used to work on sewing machine before the accident and earn Rs. 100 per day, but after the accident, she could not do so. On treatment, she had spent Rs. 1,50,000. On special diet and medicines, she spent Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 25,000. Her department made payment of Rs. 2,148 towards medicines for treatment in government hospital, but not for treatment in the private hospital. She goes to office in autorickshaw against payment of Rs. 500 per month, but before the accident, she used to go on foot.

During cross-examination, she states that she did not claim full reimbursement of the expenses incurred by her from the department. However, whatever claim was made, she has received.

With the above background, we are of the opinion that award of compensation by the Claims Tribunal in this case is not excessive, as contended. Unfortunately, Jayshree Joshi has died, having met with another accident.

Consequently, we do not find any force in this appeal which is dismissed.