Uma Devi vs Banti Kumar - 2022 Supreme(Pat) 721

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Pat) 721

RAJIV ROY
Uma Devi – Appellant
Versus
Banti Kumar – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants : Mr. Chandra Kant.
For the Respondents: Mr. Nachiketa Jha.

Rajiv Roy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent.

2. The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 08.12.2015 passed in M.V Claim Case No. 18 of 2013 by the learned Session Judge, Siwan by which the compensation amount under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act (henceforth for short 'the Act') was cut to 50% inasmuch as direction was given to pay interim compensation only to the extent of 50% after holding that the deceased was also at fault as he was in a state of drunkenness.

3. The matrix of facts giving rise to the present appeal is/are as follows:—

4. On 28.03.2013, the motorcycle bearing registration no. BR-29J 7398 hit Ajay Chaurashiya, (deceased) who died due to the said collision. As such, the present claim case was filed before the concerned Court. However, during the argument, it came to notice that while it is a fact that the deceased was hit by the motorcycle aforesaid, further fact is that the deceased was in a state of drunkenness and as such, he was also at fault and accordingly, the learned Session Judge, Siwan (concerned Court) chose to grant only half of the interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act to half i.e. Rs. 25,000/-.

5. Ag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document