Back
High Court Of Delhi
PATRICIA JEAN MAHAJAN - Appellant
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO - Respondent
L.P.A. 236 of 2001
Decided On : 10/17/2001
Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166, Section 140 - 166, 140
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought enhanced compensation for the death of Dr. Sudesh Mahajan in a road accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation, which was subsequently appealed by the appellants and the Insurance Company. The appellants contested the compensation amount, while the Insurance Company sought a reduction. The court heard the appeals and made a decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died due to the negligent driving of a truck, upheld the enhanced compensation for the appellants, and granted interest on the enhanced amount. The court also determined the appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation and addressed the maintainability of the appeal by the Insurance Company.
Issues: The issues included the determination of negligence, calculation of compensation, application of the appropriate multiplier, and the maintainability of the appeal by the Insurance Company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants were entitled to enhanced compensation, interest on the enhanced amount, and a multiplier of 13 for calculating compensation. The court also decided that the appeal by the Insurance Company was maintainable despite objections.
Final Decision: The court allowed LPA No. 179/2001, dismissed LPA No. 225/2001, and partly allowed LPA No. 236/2001. The Insurance Company was given four weeks to deposit the calculated amount before the MACT for disbursement to the appellants. The appellants were entitled to apply for conversion of the amount deposited into USD. No costs were awarded.
Madan B. Lokur
( 1 ) THERE are three Letters Patent Appeals which we propose to decide by this common judgment. The first is LPA No. 179/2001 by Patricia Jean Mahajan, her two daughters and a son and her father-in-law and mother-in-law (hereinafter called the appellants ). This LPA is directed against the judgment and order dated 13/03/2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 273/1998. In brief, the grievance of the appellants is that the compensation granted by the learned Single Judge deserves to be enhanced.
( 2 ) THE second is LPA No. 225/2001filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short the Insurance Company ). The challenge in this appeal is to findings recorded in the judgment and order dated 13/3/2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 366/1998. The question raised, though not pressed by the learned Attorney General, concerns the finding of negligence of the driver of the truck involved in the accident which led to the death of the husband of Patricia Jean mahajan.
( 3 ) THE third is LPA No. 236/2001 filed by the Insurance Company directed against the judgment and order dated 13/3/2001 in FAO No. 273/1998. According to the Insurance Company, the compensation awarded by me learned single Judge should be reduced, and not enhanced as prayed for in LPA No. 179/ 2001.
( 4 ) ALL these appeals were heard by us on 23rd, 24th and 27/8/2001 when judgment was reserved. Thereafter, learned Counsel for the appellants mentioned LPA No. 179/2001 for the purposes of placing certain exhibited documents on record. These documents were earlier exhibited before the learned motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the MACT ). No one appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company or the other respondents, despite prior notice said to have been given by learned Counsel for the appellants. Consequently, on 7/09/2001, we took the documents on record,
( 5 ) AN application for stay of the impugned order was then moved by the insurance Company in LPA No. 236/2001, This application was allowed on 1 2/09/2001. For all practical purposes, therefore, the hearings before us came to end on 12/9/2001,
( 6 ) HAVING given this summation of the proceedings, it is now necessary to detail the facts of the case which have led to the filing of these three LPAs.
( 7 ) DR. Sudesh Mahajan, an American national of Indian origin died in a road accident on the Delhi-Jaipur highway on 3/2/1995.
( 8 ) THE appellants applied to the learned MACT for compensation in terms of section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act ). The claim was registered as Suit No. 325/1995. The claim was initially contested by the private respondents and later by the Insurance Company.
( 9 ) THE learned MACT framed the following issues for its consideration:
" (1) Whether the deceased received injuries because of rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR-29-D-1125 by respondent No. 1 ? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom ? (3) Relief. "
( 10 ) THE appellants examined two witnesses in support of their claim. Patricia jean Mahajan was examined as PW 1. Her deposition was, primarily, with reference to the income of her husband (the deceased ). Gulsher Ahmed, the driver of the vehicle in which Dr. Sudesh Mahajan was travelling, was examined as PW 2.
( 11 ) ON behalf of the respondents the driver of the truck (Bal Kishan) involved in the road accident, was examined as RW 1. The evidence of the respondents (other than the Insurance Company) was then closed.
( 12 ) IT appears that the Insurance Company carried out its own investigations concerning the road accident on 3/2/1995. Apparently pursuant to those investigations and other conclusions arrived at, the Insurance Company moved an application on 12/8/1997 to contest the claim of the appellants on merits. This application was moved under Section 149 read with Section 170 of the Act. It was allowed by the
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
