Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Satyeshwar Roy and Nazir Ahmad JJ.
Sobha Jain
Versus
Bihar State Tribal Co Operative Development Corporation Ltd.
Appeal From Original Order No. 38 of 1976 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 4, 1982
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110A - COMPENSATION - REMARRIAGE OF WIDOW - EFFECT ON CLAIM - CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - LUMP SUM PAYMENT - DEDUCTIONS - LIABILITY OF INSURER - SECTION 95(2)(A).
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Jayant Kumar Jain, was killed in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The deceased was a promising young man with a bright future and was earning a salary of Rs. 1,500 per month. He was expected to have made good earnings up to the age of 58 or 60 years and would have drawn gratuity and pension for the rest of his retired life. The deceased's widow, appellant No. 1, was aged 22 years at the time of his death and remarried within less than two years after the accident. The deceased's mother, appellant No. 2, was aged 47 years at the time of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the widow, even after remarriage, is entitled to compensation as the legal representative of the deceased. The court also held that the compensation should be calculated on the basis of the deceased's income, taking into account deductions for uncertainty of life, day-to-day domestic expenses, payment of income taxes and other charges, and lump sum payment. The court further held that the insurer is liable to pay only up to the limit of Rs. 50,000 and the balance amount is to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle.
Issues: 1. Whether the widow, after remarriage, is entitled to compensation? 2. How should the compensation be calculated? 3. What is the liability of the insurer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The widow, even after remarriage, is entitled to compensation as the legal representative of the deceased. 2. The compensation should be calculated on the basis of the deceased's income, taking into account deductions for uncertainty of life, day-to-day domestic expenses, payment of income taxes and other charges, and lump sum payment. 3. The insurer is liable to pay only up to the limit of Rs. 50,000 and the balance amount is to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed against respondents Nos.1 and 2 on contest in part on the lines indicated above and it was dismissed ex parte against respondent No.3 and on contest against respondent No.4. However, the parties will bear their own costs of this court.
NAZIR AHMAD, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 17-7-1976 and the Award dated 5-8-1976 of Shri Bhagwat Narayan Tiwary, District and Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). Palamau at Paltonganj.
2. The facts of the case as found from the judgment which were not disputed may be briefly stated. Shri Jayant Kumar Jain was travelling on 15-10-1971 from Daltonganj to Hazaribagh by an Ambassador Car bearing No. BRQ 3723 belonging to defendant No. 3 and driven by a driver named Bhattu Mahton. While the car was passing oV/s.ver that part of Daltonganj-Ranchi road which was near Pokhraha at a distance of about 9 miles from Daltonganj, itV/s.ame in collision at about 5 P.M. against truck No. BRV 6928 belonging to defendant NoV/s.1 and driven by a driver named Prabhu Sahay Hansda, an employee of defendant No. 1. Along with theV/s.aid driver, there were also in that truck a vehicle supervisor, Sri Surya Kumar Prasad of V/s.at defendant and also a khalasi named Ratna Urson. In course of this collision, the right side of the said Ambassador car cameV/s.n such sudden and severe impact with the hind portion of the above said tV/s.ck that the cars right rear door got torn as under and thrown on the road. The late Sri Jayant KV/s.ar Jain who was occupying back seat opposite that door received multiple serV/s.us head injuries as a result of which he immediately became unconscious. Both thV/s.vehicles jerked apart and stopped at a distance from each other. Thereafter the driver of both tV/s. Vehicles helped the injured in a bus which was going towards Daltonganj. The injured was brought to Daltonganj SadaV/s.Hospital at 5.50 P.M. by the driver of the car and he expired there at 6.10 P.M. The deceased was a foreign trained V/s.ecutive in Rohtas Industries Ltd. in their Forest Division at Patna.
3. The appellV/s.ts-plaintiffs under these circumstances filed an application in the prescribed form under Sec.1V/s.A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), claiming Rs. 10,00,000.00 aV/s.compensation payable to them by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on account of deathV/s.f Shri Jayant Kumar Jain. The deceased was aged about 26 years and was husband of plaintiff No. 1 and son of plaintiff No. 2 who is the mother. The application was registered as Title Suit No. 4 of 1972. Defendant No. 1 in the suit is the owner of the truck No. BRV 6928 and defendant No. 2 is the insurer of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is the owner of Car No. BRQ 3723 and defendant No. 4 is the insurer of defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 3 did not make appearance before the Tribunal.
4. The case of the plaintiffs before the Tribunal was that the accident took place at about 5 P.M. when the visibility was good and the road where the accident occurred was pitched and wide enough for four vehicles to pass abreast. The amount of traffic there at the time was negligible. The truck driver was speeding reckelssly and from the circumstances surrounding the occurrence it is clear that the truck driver noticed the incoming car from a sufficiently long distance. He did not, however, care to move his vehicle aside in due time to allow safe passage to the car and negligently kept sticking to the middle of the road. When the two vehicles came very close, the truck driver thought that he could not get through the available space without hitting the car. He then suddenly, abruptly, negligently and recklessly steered his truck to his left side and in doing so he dashed the hind portion of his truck against the right side of the car. It is this, coupled with the negligence and recklessness of the car driver in not moving his vehicle aside in time, that caused the accident and fatal injuries to the deceased.
5. The plaintiffs also claimed that the deceased was a very healthy and brilliant young man having received training in business administration from an American University
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
