The court emphasized the importance of taking steps to implead relevant parties and exercised discretion in interfering with the rate of interest based on the peculiar facts of the case.

Headnote:
Contributory Negligence - Insurance - The court held that despite the contention of contributory negligence, the appellant failed to take steps to implead the parties related to the parked vehicle. The court also refused to interfere with the additional 30% enhancement due to the nature of permanent disability of the respondent, but did interfere with the rate of interest, fixing it at 8%.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an Insurance Company, raised three submissions related to contributory negligence, additional compensation, and the rate of interest in a case.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant should have taken steps to implead the parties related to the parked vehicle and refused to interfere with the additional compensation but did interfere with the rate of interest, fixing it at 8%.
Issues: Contributory negligence, additional compensation, and rate of interest were the key issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the appellant to take steps to implead relevant parties and exercised discretion in interfering with the rate of interest based on the peculiar facts of the case.
Final Decision: The appeals were disposed of with directions to fix the rate of interest at 8% and no orders as to costs were made.

JUDGMENT :

KURIAN, J.

Issue notice.

2. Ms. Vandana Sehgal, learned counsel, appears and accepts notice for the caveator/Respondent No.1, in both the petitions.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Leave granted.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company has made three submissions: (i) It is a case of contributory negligence. However despite taking such a contention, no steps have been taken by the respondent(s) to implead the parties related to the vehicle which was parked on the road. (ii) There is no justification in granting additional 30%, after permitting 50% enhancement. (iii) The interest and dependent charges etc. are on higher side.

6. As far as issue no.(i) is concerned, it was for the appellant to take steps before the Tribunal to ensure that the driver, owner and the Insurance Company of the vehicle concerned are brought on the party array. Since that stage in any case is over, it is for the appellant to work out its remedies, if any, available under law in appropriate proceedings. As far as additional 30% is concerned, in the peculiar facts of this case and in the nature of permanent disability to Respondent No.1, we are not inclined to interfere with the addition.

7. However, as far as rate of interest is concerned, we are of the view that the same needs interference, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case. The interest is fixed at 8%.

8. With the above observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of.

9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

10. There shall be no orders as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2018 Supreme(SC) 196

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAKURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - APPELLANTSVERSUSUSHA BHAGCHANDANI & ORS. - RESPONDENTSCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1872 of 2018, C.A. NO.1873 of 2018 @ SLP(C) NO. 2671 of 2018Decided on : 13-02-2018.

The court emphasized the importance of taking steps to implead relevant parties and exercised discretion in interfering with the rate of interest based on the peculiar facts of the case.

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
USHA BHAGCHANDANI & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1872 of 2018, C.A. NO.1873 of 2018 @ SLP(C) NO. 2671 of 2018
Decided on : 13-02-2018.