Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Gudda Alias Hemraj Dhanak on 31 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 31 ST OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 1327 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH
ENGINEERING NARSINGHPUR DISTT.
NARSINGHPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHANDRAKANT KACHHI S/O SHOBHARAM
KACHHI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, GIDHWANI
POST BHUGWARA TEHSIL AND PS KARELI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ABHAY SHANKAR PATHAK - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND
GUDDA ALIAS HEMRAJ DHANAK S/O MITHAILAL
DHANAK, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOURER R/O GRAM KHAMHARIYA KARAIYKHEDA
P.S. TEHSIL AND DISTT. NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI NEERAJ ASHAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
____________________________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 02.05.2024
Pronounced on : 31.05.2024
____________________________________________________________________________
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following
JUDGMENT
This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellants under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by award dated
25.01.2019 passed by IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rehli,
District Narsinghpur (M.P.) in MACC 31/2020 for setting aside the award.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that in this case
accident is not occurred by vehicle No.MP02-5866. It is also submitted that in
absence of evidence of the concerning doctor, learned Tribunal has considered
medical bills of Rs.91,050/-. It is submitted that without any proof, Tribunal has
assessed income of the claimant as Rs.4500/- per month. Hence, it is prayed to
set aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant submits that claimant has
proved that accident was occurred by offending vehicle No.MP02-5866 and
after investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellant No.2
Chandrakant Kachhi who is the driver of the offending vehicle. On behalf of
non-applicants, no witness has been examined before the Tribunal. Tribunal has
considered oral and documentary evidence available on record and found that
accident was caused by offending vehicle No. MP02-5866. It is also submitted
that medicines were purchased as per prescription of the doctor and medical
bills were issued by Government hospital; in fact Tribunal has not considered
bill No. 56-75, 79 and 101. It is further submitted that Tribunal has determined
monthly income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- per month whereas as per
Minimum Wages Act, income of unskilled labour was Rs.6,850/-. Therefore,
the compensation amount awarded by learned claims tribunal is just and proper
and prayed to reject the appeal.
4. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
5. In this case on behalf of the claimant Gudda @ Hemraj (PW-1) and
Sanjay Patel (PW-2) has been examined but on behalf of non-applicants no
witness has been examined. Gudda (PW-1) has stated that accident was caused
by non-applicant No.1 Chandrakant Kachhi who was driving Mahindra pickup
bearing registration No.MP02-5866 rashly and negligently and dashed the
tractor. Statement of PW-1 has been corroborated by the statement of PW-2
and in their cross-examination nothing has come to disbelief their statements.
6. In this case, after investigation charge sheet has been filed against the
appellant No.2/driver and Tribunal has discussed in detail the evidence of PW-1
and PW-2 and found that the statements deposed by the witnesses are reliable
and accident was caused by appellant No.2/driver who was driving the
offending vehicle rashly and negligently. In the considered opinion of this
Court, Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that accident was
caused by appellant No.2 who was driving the offending vehicle rashly and
negligently, therefore, contention of learned counsel for the appellant/State is
not sustainable.
7. In this case, claimant/ respondent Gudda @ Hemraj sustained
fracture, multiple ribs Rt., Upper 1/2 Rt Tibia and other injuries were caused
which are grievous in nature. Claimant was admitted to the Medical Hospital for
a long time i.e. from 18.04.2017 to 12.05.2017 and from 24.11.2017 to
15.12.2017. Looking to the injuries and the period of which he was admitted to
the hospital, Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical
pain and has considered medical bills which were genuine. Tribunal has rightly
assessed monthly income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- per month whereas as
per Minimum Wages Act, at the time of accident, monthly income of unskilled
labour was Rs.6,850/- per month. Amount awarded under various other heads
are also just and proper.
8. In view of above, appellants have failed to point out any infirmity in
the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Hence, no interference is required
in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
9. Therefore, appeal filed by appellants is dismissed and findings
recorded by the Tribunal be affirmed.
10. Appeal filed by appellants is disposed of accordingly.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
shahina
