Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALRAO EKBOLE, K.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Hindusthan Ideal Insurance company Limited, having its registered office in thepremises of the Andhra Bank Buildings, Sultan Bazar.Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Pokanti Ankaiab - Respondent
Decided On : 09-11-70
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 96 - APPLICABILITY - CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - INSURANCE COMPANY - RIGHT TO CONTEST CLAIM - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
A lorry insured with the appellant insurance company knocked down and killed Ramulu, a 19-year-old peon. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 17,300/- as compensation to the deceased's father, holding that Ramulu would have rendered assistance to his father and other family members for 36 years and would have provided financial assistance of Rs. 40/- per month. The insurance company appealed to the High Court, contending that the Claims Tribunal erred in refusing to permit it to raise the plea that the compensation was excessive and that Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, did not preclude it from raising such a plea. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 96 barred the insurance company from raising such a plea.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was not applicable to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal and that the insurance company had a right to raise the plea that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was excessive. The Court also held that the Claims Tribunal erred in determining the quantum of compensation without taking into consideration the relevant factors and that the amount awarded was inordinately high.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is applicable to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal? 2. Whether the insurance company had a right to raise the plea that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was excessive? 3. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in determining the quantum of compensation without taking into consideration the relevant factors?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is not applicable to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal because: a. Section 96 was enacted before the Claims Tribunals were constituted and the language of the section suggests that it was intended to apply only to suits instituted before a civil court. b. The scheme of proceedings before the Claims Tribunal is distinctly separate from the scheme of a suit and its trial before a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. c. The Parliament deliberately chose to provide a different pattern of procedure for the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal and did not amend Section 96 to make it applicable to such proceedings. 2. The insurance company had a right to raise the plea that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was excessive because: a. Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, does not preclude the insurance company from raising such a plea. b. The insurance company is a party to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal and has a right to contest the claim on any ground that is available to the person against whom the claim has been made. 3. The Claims Tribunal erred in determining the quantum of compensation without taking into consideration the relevant factors because: a. The Tribunal failed to take into account the possibility of premature death, the possibility of the deceased's earnings increasing or decreasing in the future, and the possibility of the deceased's family receiving financial benefits from other sources. b. The Tribunal applied a multiplier that was too high, resulting in an award that was inordinately high.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Claims Tribunal and the High Court, and awarded compensation of Rs. 7,200/- to the deceased's father.
( 2 ) THE Insurance company admitted that the vehicle APJ 979 was insured with the company for the period commencing from 16-10-1962 to 15-10-1963. It was averred that the claim of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation was excessive and legally untenable. It was contended that the company was liable only to the extent of the loss suffered. The 2nd respondent, the owner of the vehicle, remained exparte throughout. At the time of arguments, however, he filed an application to set aside the ex parte order. There upon he was permitted to contest from the stage where the proceedings stood at that time. He examined himself and participated in the arguments. The 3rd respondent remained throughout exparte.
( 3 ) THE claims Tribunal framed two issues. After recording the evidence adduced by the parties and marking the documents produced by them, the Claims Tribunal held that the death of Ramulu was due to his having been knocked down by the lorry. It was also held that the owner of the lorry was liable for the compensation. The claims tribunal determined the quantum of damages at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month for the next 36 years and granted a decree in favour of the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 17,300/ -. It held that the petitioner would be entitled to recover the said amount from the Insurance company.
( 4 ) DISSATISFIED with that award, the insurance company preferred an appeal to the High Court which came up for consideration before our learned brother Krishna Rao J,, The owner of the lorry did not prefer any appeal to this Court, nor did he appear in the appeal filed by the Insurance company although he was made a party to the appeal. The driver was ex parte in the trial court and continued to be so before the Appellate Court.
( 5 ) THE learned Judge held that it is not open to the Insurance-company to raise a plea relating to the quantum of compensation as section 96 permits it to raise such defences as are enumerated in section 96 and no more. The learned Judge, however, gave a finding that the claimant would have been entitled to rs. 7,200/- calculated at Rs. 30/- per month for 20 years. Since the learned Judge was of the opinion that such a defence could not be raised by the Insurance company, he refused to reduce the amount of compensation. As a result of his first finding, the appeal was dismissed. The Insurance company has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the said judgment.
( 6 ) IT was firstly contended by Sri K. Ramgopal, the learned counsel for the appellant, that section 96 is applicable only to a suit instituted before civil court and that it is not applicable to a proceeding instituted before the Claims Tribunal. His contention was that the language of section 96 necessarily leads to that conclusion. He argued that Section 96 (1) uses the words judgment judgment debtor and and decree which terminology, according to him, is appropriate only to a suit instituted before a Civil Court and not a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal.
( 7 ) IT is no doubt true that the said words do appear in Section 96 (1) of th
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
