Back
2011 (8) Supreme 301
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Asok Kumar Ganguly and Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.
National Insurance Company Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Sinitha & Ors. — Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No.6513 of 2007
Decided on : 23-11-2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 –Sections 166, 163A - Death of deceased in a vehicular accident while riding a motorcycle -Claim petition by claimants allowed by Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.4,26,650/-. Appeal-Allowed by High Court by holding, that Rs.5000/- awarded for pain and suffering, was impermissible under Section 163A of the Act- Special Leave Petition- Plea that claimants were not entitled to raise any claim for compensation as accident in question had occurred solely and exclusively on account of negligence of deceased - Negligence is a factual issue and can only be established through cogent evidence-It was therefore imperative for petitioner-Insurance Company to have pleaded negligence, and to have established same through cogent evidence- The petitioner insurance-company failed to produce any witness before Tribunal- Since no pleading or evidence had been brought to notice by petitioner, held not possible to conclude, that inverse onus which had been placed on the shoulders of petitioner under Section 163A of the Act to establish negligence, had been discharged by it- Special Leave Petition dismissed (Para 17)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 –Sections 166, 163A - Death of deceased in a vehicular accident while riding a motorcycle -Claim petition by claimants allowed by Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.4,26,650/-. Appeal-Allowed by High Court by holding, that Rs.5000/- awarded for pain and suffering, was impermissible under Section 163A of the Act- Special Leave Petition- Plea that deceased being rider of motorcycle, could not be treated as a third party- It was contended that claim under Section 163A could only be raised at behest of a third party-. To substantiate said contention, it was essential for petitioner to establish, that deceased having occupied shoes of owner, could not be treated as third party- Only factual details brought on record through reliable evidence, could discharge said onus- However petitioner failed to pont out relationship between deceased and owner of motorcycle involved in the accident- Since relationship between deceased and owner had not been established, nor the capacity in which he was riding the vehicle had been brought out, held not possible to conclude, that deceased while riding motorcycle on the fateful day, was an agent, employee or representative of the owner-Special Leave Petition dismissed (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the Case :
A. Deceased herein in the instant case died in a vehicular accident while riding a motorcycle .Claim petition filed by claimants was allowed by Tribunal Awarding compensation of Rs.4,26,650/-. Appeal thereagainst was Allowed by High Court by holding, that Rs.5000/- awarded for pain and suffering, was impermissible under Section 163A of the Act.
B. Present Special Leave Petition has been filed on Plea that claimants were not entitled to raise any claim for compensation as accident in question had occurred solely and exclusively on account of negligence of deceased.
Findings of the Court :
A. Negligence is a factual issue and can only be established through cogent evidence.It was therefore imperative for petitioner-Insurance Company to have pleaded negligence, and to have established same through cogent evidence.
B. The petitioner insurance-company failed to produce any witness before Tribunal. Since no pleading or evidence had been brought to notice by petitioner, held not possible to conclude, that inverse onus which had been placed on the shoulders of petitioner under Section 163A of the Act to establish negligence, had been discharged by it. Special Leave Petition was dismissed
JUDGMENT
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
1. Shijo, aged 27 years, was riding a motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-8J-6528, on 3.3.1999 on the Wadakkanchery-Kunnamkulam Road. George K., also aged 27 years, was pillion-riding with Shijo. While giving way to a bus coming from the opposite side at Kumaranelly, the motorcycle hit a big laterite stone lying on the tar road. On impact, the motorcycle overturned. Resultantly, the rider as also the pillion-rider suffered injuries. They were taken to Divine Medical Centre, Wadakkanchery, for treatment. Thereafter, the rider Shijo, was taken to West Fort Hospital, Thrissur. The pillion-rider George K. was taken to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. Shijo succumbed to his injuries on the following day. George K., survived. The motorcycle was insured with the petitioner herein i.e. the National Insurance Company Limited. A valid act only policy, at the time of the occurrence, is admitted.
2. On 18.8.2000 the complainants, i.e. the wife, children and parents of Shijo, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, Kerala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Through the aforesaid claim petition, the claimants prayed for compensation of Rs.8,20,500/-. The claim petition was subsequently amended, inasmuch as, the claim was sought under Section 163A of the Act. A separate claim for compensation by George K., the pillion-rider, was also filed. The claim made by George K., is not relevant for the present controversy, inasmuch as, the instant petition pertains to compensation awardable to the claimants of deceased Shijo.
3. The Tribunal by its order dated 19.4.2005, allowed the claim petition filed by the wife, minor children and parents of Shijo. They were awarded compensation of Rs.4,26,650/-. The instant compensation included Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, Rs.2500/- as loss of estate, Rs.4150/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. Additionally, interest at the rate of 6% per annum was awarded with effect from 18.8.2000 (i.e. the date of filing the claim petition), till realization. The claimants were also awarded costs quantified at Rs.8000/-.
4. Dissatisfied with the determination rendered by the Tribunal, the National Insurance Company Limited, i.e. the appellant herein, preferred MACA no.1569 of 2006 before the Kerala High Court. The High Court decided the said appeal on 22.9.2006. The High Court upheld one of the contentions of the appellant-Insurance Company by holding, that Rs.5000/- awarded for pain and suffering, was impermissible under Section 163A of the Act. Even without issuing notice to the claimants, the aforesaid amount was ordered to be deducted from the total compensation held as payable to claimants (by the Tribunal). Besides the aforesaid determination, all other components of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, were upheld by the High Court. Still dissatisfied, the National Insurance Company Limited has approached this Court by filing the instant petition, for special leave to appeal.
5. While assailing the order of the High Court, the first contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that the claimants are not entitled to raise any claim for compensation because the accident in question had occurred solely and exclusively on account of the negligence of the deceased Shijo. Insofar as the instant contention is concerned, reliance was placed on the determination rendered by the Tribunal, wherein in paragraph 8, based on the first information report, post mortem certificate, scene mahazor, report of inspection of the vehicle, inquest report and the final report, the Tribunal had concluded that Shijo was “responsible” for the accident. It was, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that no compe
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
