SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 706

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
M/s. I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Company Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5220 of 2022 (Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) No. 21077 of 2019)
Decided on : 10-08-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Atul Babasaheb Dakh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sakshi Mittal, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident – Rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Death in motor accident – Dismissal of claim application by High Court in appeal – Application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial – Rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature – There is no reason to doubt veracity of statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in accident – If daughters of deceased have not been impleaded as claimants, it is immaterial as amount of compensation payable by tortfeasor will not get enhanced because of daughters being party to claim application – Compensation under head on account of loss of love and affection is not permissible but compensation on account of spousal consortium for wife and for parental consortium for children is admissible – Compensation of Rs. 11,63,000/- along with 7% interest awarded. (Paras 10, 11, 13 and 15)

Facts of the case:

Deceased was driving motorcycle when Maruti-800 Car came from opposite direction and dashed into motorcycle of the deceased. Legal heirs of deceased are in appeal against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby, award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.8,90,000/- along with interest @7% p.a. was set aside.

Findings of Court:

Compensation comes out to be Rs. 11,63,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. as awarded by learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim application till realization.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The legal heirs of deceased Dinkar Shankarrao Ghorpade are in appeal against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 14.12.2018 whereby, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.8,90,000/-along with interest @7% p.a. was set aside.

2. The deceased was driving motorcycle bearing No. MH-20/AD-956 on 1.6.2007 when Maruti-800 Car bearing No. MH-41/C-1777 came from the opposite direction and dashed into the motorcycle of the deceased as per the appellants. The deceased and appellant No. 1 received serious injuries. The deceased was thus admitted in a Government Hospital (Ghati Hospital). On 2.6.2007, the deceased was shifted to Kamal Nayan Bajaj Hospital but he died on 25.6.2007. The cause of death was head injury.

3. Appellant No. 1 lodged a complaint on 2.7.2007 where an FIR was registered against unknown vehicle and unknown driver. It was on 20.8.2007, the registration of the offending vehicle and the names of the driver and the owner of the vehicle were informed. Thereafter, the Police started its investigation and charge sheeted the driver Sanjay S/o Ramesh Sonwane.

4. On account of death of the deceased, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation was filed on 8.5.2009. The owner of the vehicle denied the accident. It was stated by the owner in his written statement that the driver -Sanjay was never engaged by him and there is no relation of employer and employee between them. The driver neither filed written statement nor appeared as witness. The Insurance Company did not lead any evidence.

5. After considering the evidence of appellant No. 1, Janabai (PW-1) and the statement of owner -Chudaman Vanji Patil, the learned Tribunal, in the absence of any salary certificate, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-and after deducting 1/3rd salary towards personal expenses, assessed the monthly expenses as Rs.6,670/-. The multiplier of 11 was applied. A sum of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/-towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,500/-towards loss of estate was awarded, thus, a total sum of Rs.8,90,000/-was assessed as compensation. The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred by the vehicle owned by the owner, when the following finding was recorded:

    “…He admitted that, Cr. No. 58/2007 was registered against driver of his car and charge-sheet was filed against respondent No.3 Sanjay. Police has seized his car and it was returned as per the order of the Court. He admitted that, he had not filed any proceeding to quash the FIR against Sanjay. He further deposed that he had taken bail of Sanjay in the said crime. The Bail Application and surety and 7/12 extract are at Exhs.68, 69 and 70. It is to be noted that, in the examination-in-chief, Chudaman Patil has stated that he is not concerned with respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 was not serving as a driver with him. However, the bail application form at Exh.68 shows that, Chudaman Patil i.e. respondent No.1 remained surety for respondent No.3 Sanjay Sonavane and it is mentioned that accused is the driver of the surety's vehicle. It clearly shows that, respondent No.1 deposed falsely before the Court that, he was not concerned with respondent No.3. It is also to be noted that, neither respondent No.3 nor respondent No. 1 had filed any petition for quashing the FIR. Police carried out the investigation and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against respondent No.3. So, it clearly shows that, Maruti Car bearing No.MH-41/C-1777 was involved in the accident and gave dash to the motorcycle of deceased and caused the accident. Respondent No.3 drove the Maruti Car rashly and negligently….”

6. However, in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the High Court did not accept the findings that the accident was caused by the car owned by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top