GHANSHYAM PATEL Vs. VIJAY KUMAR DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling dissatisfied with the award dated 15-7-1994 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 386/94 (initially M. V. case No. 11/84) by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, the claimant, the owner and the driver, and the insurer have invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court for mitigation of their respective grievances. As the same award is assailed by the affected parties, each from his own standpoint, these appeals were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The factual scenario as has been depicted is that on 8-3-83 at about 9 p.m. when Vijay Kumar Dubey, the claimant (appellant in M.A. No. 850/94) was returning to his home after his duty hours in Hitkarani Law College, Jabalpur situate at the road leading from Tularam Chouk towards Omti crossing, the jeep bearing registration No. MVJ-2369, owned by Ghanshyam Patel being driven in a rash and negligent manner near the Sub-Station Mardhatal M. P. Electricity Board, dashed aainst the cycle of the claimant as a result of which both the legs of the claimant were crushed under the wheels of the said vehicle. The victim of the accident was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Jabalpur where his left leg was amputated and a rod was inserted in his right leg. He had to remain as an indoor patient from 8-3-83 to 7-4-83. An FIR was lodged at Lordganj Police Station, Jabalpur and the criminal law was set in motion. The claimant, sent a notice on 19-5-83 claiming damages but there was no response either from the owner or from the insurer. It has been asserted in the petition that the victim was getting Rs. 449.20 paise towards his salary from the College and he would have served for a number of years as he was only 30 years old at the time of the accident. There was possibility of his getting into promotional cadre. On various heads namely, loss of earning, mental shock and agony, medical expenses and the damage to the cycle and expenses incurred in sending the legal notice, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,02,510/-.

(3.) The said application was resisted by the owner asserting that his jeep was in the house of one Dal Singh Patel and was not road worthy and, therefore, the question of claimant becoming a victim of an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle did not arise. The driver Dinesh Kumar filed his written statement contending that he was not driving the vehicle as he did not know how to drive a vehicle and, therefore, putting the blame on him for rash and negligent driving was absolutely unjustified.The insurance company in its written statement, controverted the averments and pleaded that the vehicle bearing registration No. MVJ-2639 was not insured with it but the vehicle bearing registration No. GJH-517 was insured. The further plea of the insurer was that its liability was confined to Rs. 50,000/- the same being the statutory liability.