Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Chaturvedi vs Yogiraj Singh on 8 December, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 8th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 3350 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
MAHENDRA CHATURVEDI S/O
SHRINIWAS CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT
49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS
CONDUCTOR LOHIYA BAZAAR
LASHKAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI GOPAL PRASAD CHOURASIA -ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANT.
AND
YOGIRAJ SINGH S/O SUKHVIR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: DRIVER BEARING NO.
1.
MP09 TA 5476 LINE NO. 1 QUATER NO.
204 BIRLA NAGAR GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
THR.MY CAVE M/S BIRLA SOLUTION
2. AND CONSULTANT PVT LTD. NEAR
BUS STATD, (MADHYA PRADESH)
THR. DIVISON MANAGER UNITED
INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. OFFICE AT
3.
CENTER POINT, PHOOLBAGH,
LASHKAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BAL KRISHNA AGRAWAL-ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-3].
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court
passed the following:
02
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award dated 20.03.2019 passed in MACC
No.900177/2015 whereby learned claims tribunal dismissed the
appeal only on the ground of delay i.e. 4 days in lodging the FIR
by assessing the compensation to the tune of Rs.58,344/-.
Perused the record.
Accident took place on 5.9.2015. FIR has been lodged on
9.9.15. Reason has been assigned in lodging the delayed FIR that
he was busy in getting himself treated. The claimant himself
lodged the FIR. He got fracture in the aforesaid accident. After
investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against driver of
offending vehicle. Looking to the fact and circumstances, learned
tribunal erred in holding that negligence of the accident could not
be proved. In such circumstances, this Court comes to the
conclusion that appellant is able to prove that the aforesaid
accident took place by the negligence of respondent No.1 i.e.
driver.
During course of arguments, counsel for the appellant made
a submission that appeal be decided finally as he does not want to
remand the matter back.
Prayer is accepted.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court deems it fit to allow the appeal extending of award
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation at 6% interest. The claimant -
appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- which
is inclusive of the amount as already assessed by the learned
claims Tribunal. The claims tribunal assessed the compensation to
the tune of Rs.58,344/-. Therefore, in addition, the
appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation to the tune of
Rs.41,656/-. Enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6%
from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of realisation. At
this stage, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company
submits that at the time of accident driver of the offending vehicle
was not having any valid permit, therefore, the Insurance
Company shall free to recover the amount as awarded by this
Court from respondents no.1 and 2 i.e. Driver and owner.
In view of the aforesaid insurance company is duty bound to
satisfy the award at the first instance and then recover from the
owner and driver of the offending vehicle in accordance with law.
Hence, the primary liability is fixed on the insurance company
herein to pay the compensation to the appellant/claimant at the
first instance and then to recover the same from the owner and
driver of the offending vehicle.
The trial court is directed to see that on presentation of
execution, the amount is realized from the insurance company first
thereafter the same can be recovered from owner and driver within
six months.
M.A. No.3350/2019 stands disposed of.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
VAN
VANDANA VERMA
2022.12.09 13:00:27
-08'00'
