LAWS(MPH)-2000-5-32

UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHOLARAM

Decided On May 08, 2000
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
BHOLARAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment disposes Miscellaneous Appeal No. 410/1999 (Union of India v. Bholaram alias Murarilal and another) and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 433/1999 (Bholaram alias Murarilal v. Dhruvlal and another) arising out of the same award of the Ninth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (for short, the 'Tribunal'), dated 29-1-1999.

(2.) Briefly, it may be stated that the claimant was going on scooter on 27-1-1997 from Naya Bazar to Katora Talab. He was hit by jeep No. M. P. 07-A/9026 which was being driven rashly and negligently by driver Dhruvlal. The matter was reported to the Police. Since the petitioner/claimant received serious injuries, he was shifted to J. A. Hospital, Gwalior. His left foot was operated and after some days he came home. Thereafter, he went to Dr. Mahana since he was feeling pain in the foot and then to Dr. Dubey. In Dr. Dubey's Nursing Home his foot was again operated. As a result of this accident, it is submitted that the claimant suffered mentally, physically and lost the earning capacity. Consequently, claim for Rs. 6,00,000/- has been raised. The defence taken is that the claimant was drunk while moving on the scooter and it was the scooter which hit the jeep since the claimant did not know driving.

(3.) The Tribunal examined the matter and came to the conclusion that the accident took place as alleged, therefore, the claimant was entitled to compensation. As a result, compensation of Rs. 1,77,350/- has been awarded carrying interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till payment to be made within 3 months otherwise it would carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum. This award has been assailed by the claimant asking for enhanced compensation (in M.A.No. 433/99) and by the respondent, Union of India, stating that the compensation awarded is on higher side (in M.A.No. 410/99), therefore, it should be reduced in case it is found that the claimant was negligent.