Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
C. N. LAIK, R. BHATTACHARYYA
THE MOTOR OWNERS INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
HRISHIKESH DAS - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 516 Of 1966
Decided On : AUGUST 02, 1974
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-A - COMPENSATION FOR BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL - PAYMENT BY THIRD PARTY - JOINT APPEAL BY INSURER AND OWNER - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Two appeals were filed, one by the insurance company and the other by one of the owners of a bus, against the awards of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to a husband and wife who were injured in a bus accident. The husband claimed compensation for shock, physical pain, mental distress, loss of income, and damage to personal effects, while the wife claimed compensation for similar injuries, loss of income, and damage to personal effects. The Tribunal awarded compensation to both the husband and wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award compensation for damage to property, including personal effects, under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, even before the 1969 amendment that explicitly included damage to property within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The court rejected the argument that the payment of expenses by a third party, in this case, the father-in-law of the injured persons, barred the claimants from receiving compensation. The court also held that the joint appeal by the insurer and the owner was competent since the owner was also an appellant. Lastly, the court rejected the argument that the claimants were guilty of contributory negligence, as there was no evidence to support this claim.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award compensation for damage to property under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Whether the payment of expenses by a third party barred the claimants from receiving compensation. 3. Whether the joint appeal by the insurer and the owner was competent. 4. Whether the claimants were guilty of contributory negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The language of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is broad enough to include compensation for damage to property, including personal effects. The purpose of the Act is to provide a complete machinery for dealing with all types of claims arising out of motor accidents, and this would be frustrated if the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to dispose of claims for damage to property. 2. The payment of expenses by a third party does not bar the claimants from receiving compensation. The wrongdoer is liable to pay compensation regardless of whether a third party has made payments. 3. A joint appeal by the insurer and the owner is competent if the owner is also an appellant. 4. Contributory negligence is a defense that must be pleaded and proved by the defendant. In the absence of evidence to support a claim of contributory negligence, the court will not find the claimants liable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both the appeals and the cross-objection, but corrected the decree in favor of the wife to reflect the correct amount of compensation awarded.
( 1 ) THESE are the two appeals jointly by the Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and by one of the owners of the Bus -- one appeal against the husband Hrishikesh, and the other against the wife, Kaiyani.
( 2 ) THE appeals arose out of two applications, one by the husband and the other by the wife, giving rise to Motor Vehicle Case Nos. 31 and 32 of 1965, under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the recovery of compensation based on the same accident at Digha, when the bus knocked down both the petitioners, causing serious injuries to them.
( 3 ) THE husband laid his claim at Rs. 10,000/- and the wife laid her claim at Rs. 35,000/ -. Both the applications were heard analogously on the same set of evidence by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz. , the District Judge, Midnapore.
( 4 ) THE Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs. 5,600/- towards the compensation of the husband and a sum of Rs. 13,681/- for the wife.
( 5 ) AGAINST the said award and decree, the aforesaid two appeals have been preferred. The respective claimant was the respondent No. 1 in each of the appeals and the other five Bus owners were made the other respondents. There was a cross-objection in each of the appeals by the claimant and in respect of the rest of the claims which have not been awarded in their favour.
( 6 ) I deal with both the appeal and the cross objection together about the quantum of compensation, claimed by the husband and the wife. The husband claimed Rs. 500/- on account of shock, Rs. 500/- for physical pain and Rs. 1,000/- for mental distress, totalling Rs. 2,000/ -. These whole claims were rightly allowed by the Trial Court. The next claim of the husband was for a sum of Rs. 1,223/- for medical expenses. This claim was rightly rejected by the Trial Court, as there is no evidence in support of the claim.
( 7 ) THE next item of the husband's claim was a total sum of Rs. 5,200/- out of which Rs. 2,500/- was claimed as due to loss of income from the legal profession for 10 months from January to October, 1965 at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month, Rs.700/- towards depleted income for 7 months from November, 1965 to May, 1966 and lastly a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for expected loss of income for the rest of the life. The Court below allowed a total sum of Rs. 3,000/- out of the said sum of Rs. 5,200/- and that in our view it was also rightly allowed on evidence.
( 8 ) THE husband further claimed a sum of Rs. 500/- due to the throbbing pain in the head. This also according to our view was rightly rejected by the Trial Court as this is included in the claims for physical pain, shock and mental distress which has been fully allowed as already stated. A sum of Rs. 500/- was claimed for extra conveyance. This claim did neither appeal to the Trial Court nor to us and the same has been rightly rejected.
( 9 ) THE last group of claim was Rs. 400/- for wallet, Rs. 50/- for spectacles, Rs. 150/- for a gold ring, totalling a sum of Rs. 600/ -. The whole amount was allowed by the Trial Court and that in our view rightly.
( 10 ) SO far as the wife's claim is concerned she claimed a total sum of Rs. 35,000/ -. No specific details have been given in the claim petition.
( 11 ) SHE claimed a sum of Rs. 2,000/-due to shock, physical pain and mental distress. The whole amount was rightly allowed by the Trial Court. Like her husband she also claimed for medical expenses and other items connected therewith which have been rightly disallowed by the court below. Both the patients were in the Government Hospital as indoor patients. They had to pay no fees to any Doctor nor to pay for any diet charges. If the father of the injured brought certain other special diet for the patients, in our view they cannot claim for the same. Her next item of claim was for a sum of Rs. 300/- for the loss of the wrist watch and earrings. The whole amount was rightly allowed by the Trial Court.
( 12 ) LIKEW
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
