Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI, C.J.I. AND N.P. SINGH , J.
R. D. Hattangadi, Appellant
Versus
M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, Respondents. 756
Civil Appeals Nos. 1799-1800 and Spl. Leave Petn. (C) No. 4586 of 1989
Decided on 6-1-1995.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section, 110A - Pay Compensation - Accident Claims - Car was owned by Pest Control India - Ltd -respondent and was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited respondent motor lorry was owned by one - Respondent and was insured by Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited respondent - According to appellant driver of car in which appellant was sitting as court as driver of lorry which was coming from opposite side both courted being driven in rash and negligent manner which resulted into head on collision appellant gave notice to Insurance Company and other parties who courted liable to pay compensation and called upon them to pay compensation Since there was no response appellant filed claim petition Motor Vehicles hereinafter referred to as Act – Held, Pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life claims for non-pecuniary loss - Appellant has claimed lump-sum amount each two heads - High Court has allow courted against claims - When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including his age unusual deprivation he has suffered effect thereof on his future life - Amount of compensation for non pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration - According to appellant was an advocate having good practice in different courts and as because of accident he has been crippled and can move only on wheel chair High Court should have allow courted an amount in respect of claim for pain and suffering and in respect of loss of amenities of life - Court direct payment rupees three laths only against claim heads Pain and Suffering and Loss of amenities of life - So far direction of High Court regarding payment of interest at rate over total amount held to be payable to appellant is concerned it has to be modified - High Court should have clarified that interest shall not be payable over amount directed to be paid to appellant in respect of future expenditure different heads - It need not be pointed out that interest is to be paid over amount which has become payable on date of award and not which is to be paid for expenditures to be incurred in future - As such court direct that appellant shall not be entitled to interest over such amount – Petition dismissed
Key Points: - Pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life should reflect special circumstances of the claimant, including age and unusual deprivation. (!) (!) (!) - The award of non-pecuniary damages involves conventional sums adjusted for the claimant’s circumstances; amounts must be decided with consideration of the claimant’s future life impact and disability. (!) (!) - Interest should be paid on amounts becoming payable on the date of award, but not on future expenditures; interest over future-expense amounts should be excluded. (!) - When there is composite/negligence by multiple vehicles, liability may be shared among insurers of the vehicles under the terms of the insurance policies. (!)
JUDGMENT
N. P. SINGH, J.:- The appellant met with an accident while travelling in an Ambassador Car (Registration No. MEQ 4583) on 20-5-1980 at about 8.30 A.M. near village Sirur on Karwar-Mangalore Road (National Highway No. 17) within the State of Karnataka. There was a head on collision between the car in which the appellant was travelling and the Motor Lorry (Registration No. MYS 7218). Because of the said collision, the driver of the car in which the appellant was travelling was thrown out and died on the spot, whereas the appellant was trapped between the dashboard and the seat. Mr. Nagarkatti who was also travelling with the appellant in the car was thrown on the road. The impact was so severe that the front left side of the door of the car was jammed and could not be opened. Seeing the accident, the villagers gathered and broke open the left side of the car with the help of crow bar and the appellant was taken out. The appellant was removed to the Kasturba Hospital where he was treated as indoor patient from 20-5-1980 to 27-5-1980. When the relations of the appellant reached the hospital, a decision was taken to remove the appellant to Bombay and accordingly on 27-5-1980 he was brought to Bombay and was admitted in the Sion Hospital. The appellant remained in the said hospital as indoor patient from 27-5-1980 to 2-8-1980. Because of the accident, the appellant suffered serious injuries resulting into 100% disability and paraplegia below the waist.
2. The car was owned by M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 1 and was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited, respondent No. 2. The motor lorry was owned by one Madhav Bolar - respondent No. 3 and was insured by Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 4. According to the appellant, the driver of the car in which the appellant was sitting as well as the driver of the lorry which was coming from the opposite side, both were being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted into a head on collision. On 11-10-1980 the appellant gave notice to the Insurance Company and other parties who were liable to pay compensation and called upon them to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00.000/-. Since there was no response, on 13-11-1980 the appellant filed the claim petition under S. 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Initially, the appellant made a claim for compensation amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-, but on 16-4-1984 he claimed Rs. 35,00,000/- as the compensation from the respondents and claim petition was amended. The age of the appellant at the time of accident was 52 years.
3. The appellant was a practising advocate before the accident. He was also a Judge of the City Civil Court for some time until he resigned in the year 1964. The appellant used tp appear in the various courts including the High Court and the SC of India. Because of the accident, the appellant became disabled and he was unable to resume his practice.
4. The claim made on behalf of the appellant was resisted by the respondents to the said petition on different grounds. The owner of the lorry resisted his liability to pay any amount of compensation on the ground that although he was owner of the said lorry but since it was insured with respondent No. 4, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation, if any, to the appellant. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., who were the owner of the car resisted the claim made on behalf of the appellant asserting that the driver of the said car was driving the car very cautiously and carefully and the accident took place entirely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the motor lorry. In any case, according to the said respondent, the compensation claimed on behalf of the appellant was excessive, imaginary and speculative in nature, which according to the said respondent was an attempt to make "a fortune out of misfortune". Respondent No. 2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., wit
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
