SUBHASH GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, in the Claim Case No. 318 of 1996 dated 15.1.1997. Subhash Gautam (claimant) is a lecturer in the Government School. On 17.9.90 at about 7.15 p.m. he was going on his scooter with his brother from Jawahar Chowk to Roshanpura. When, for going to T.T. Nagar, he turned towards the Rang Mahal Road, Dilip Kumar (driver) of jeep No. MPP 1240, driving the jeep rashly and negligently hit him resulting in compound fracture to both legs. Immediately, he was shifted to Hamedia Government Hospital. Thereafter, he went to Ujjain and took treatment. Afterwards he had to go to Bombay for treatment. There he was admitted in Hinduja Hospital. For treatment he had to go to Bombay repeatedly. The treatment continued for about 2 years incurring expenditure of Rs. 2,00,000. Respondents submit that accident took place due to negligence of claimant who came in front of the jeep resulting in the accident, otherwise the jeep was being driven at normal speed with due care and caution.

(2.) With regard to the income claimant submits that he was earning Rs. 3,200 per month. He was 40 years old at the time of the accident. Respondents have not disputed this aspect of the matter by setting up some other income of claimant. Claims Tribunal, after the evidence, came to the conclusion that drivers of jeep and scooter were equally responsible for the accident, though it is found that claimant suffered serious injuries in this accident. Consequently, compensation of Rs. 1,93,000 is assessed against the claim of Rs. 9,12,000. On account of contributory negligence by claimant, award amount has been reduced to half.

(3.) Through this appeal, claimant has challenged the award with regard to the finding on issue Nos. 1 and 2. Mrs. Amrit Ruprah contends that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of jeep by its driver. With regard to objection of Mr. P.O. Gupta, the learned counsel for respondents, that in the claim, averment is that the jeep hit the scooter head-on, it is contended that in fact this pleading is not in consonance with the actual happening of the accident which according to the learned counsel took place when the jeep hit scooter from behind. This is also supported by contents of the first information report, Exh. P-l, statement of the claimant and the ground of realities. The Claims Tribunal has also accepted this averment but goes wrong when it decides that both the drivers were equally responsible for the accident. Reference to the reply of the respondents would show that accident took place because the legs of claimant were hit with the front portion of the jeep but in evidence it is stated that the accident had not taken place with the jeep. As a matter of fact the claimant was driving the scooter speedily and when he took turn, he hit against the iron grill resulting in the accident.