Back
High Court Of Delhi
KRISHAN LAL - Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMND DIN - Respondent
First Appeal Order 11 of 1989
Decided On : 03/04/1993
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT - SECTION 110-D - APPEALS - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - LIABILITY OF OCCUPANTS - LIABILITY OF OWNER - LIABILITY OF DRIVER - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - RATE OF INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
Three appeals were filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, arising from a fatal accident involving a car and a truck. The Tribunal found that the accident was due to contributory negligence of the truck driver to the extent of 70% and of the car driver to the extent of 30%. The Tribunal also held that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 50,000.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the car driver. The Court found that the truck driver was solely responsible for the accident. The Court also held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited, as the insurance company failed to produce the original or office copy of the insurance policy or any other relevant record to prove that its liability was limited. The Court further held that the Tribunal erred in not awarding interest to the claimants. The Court awarded interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till realization on the awarded amount.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the car driver? 2. Whether the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 50,000? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in not awarding interest to the claimants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the car driver. The Court found that the truck driver was solely responsible for the accident, as he was driving in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car on the front light side. The Court also found that the car driver was driving in a normal speed and was using dipper lights and blowing horns to caution the traffic coming from the opposite direction. 2. The Court held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited, as the insurance company failed to produce the original or office copy of the insurance policy or any other relevant record to prove that its liability was limited. The Court found that the insurance company had a duty to produce the insurance policy at the first available opportunity and that its failure to do so led to the irresistible conclusion that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited. 3. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in not awarding interest to the claimants. The Court found that there was some delay on the part of the claimants, but not the whole of it, and that they should not be penalized for the delay. The Court awarded interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till realization on the awarded amount.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the award of the Tribunal and held that the appellants would be entitled to 70% of the awarded amount, which came to Rs. 2,10,000 for Neena Vashist and Ors., Rs. 3,06,000 for Om Wati and Ors., and Rs. 2,10,000 for Bhagwanti Devi. The Court also held that the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till realization on the awarded amount.
( 1 ) THESE three appeals filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, (hereinafter called the act ) have arisen in the following circumstances.
( 2 ) ON 27th May, 1979, at about 11. 45 P. M. S/shri Sanjeev Kumar, Shiv Singh and Satpal were travelling in Car No. HRH-24 from New Delhi to Ghaziabad and a truck No. DLL 5052 was being driven by Mohd. Din from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car, as a result of which the car was badly damaged and all the three occupants recevied serious injuries out ultimately succumbed to the same. The legal heirs of all the deceased filed petitions for the grant of compensation before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal ). These were listed under the names of Neena Vashist. Vs. Mohd. Din, Om Wati Vs. Mohd. Din and Krishan Lal and Ors. Vs. Mohd. Din. Neena Vashist, widow of Sanjeev Kumar. alleged in her petition that the deceased was 35 years old. He was a flourishing businessman and had a bright future, lie enjoyed a name in the social circle. He was elected Municipal Councillor in Ghaziabad and remained Councillor for 6 years, He was Chairman of several Committees. Neena was 30 years old when the accident took place. Beside the widow, the deceased left one son and three daughters who were minors. Wild the death of Sanjeev Kumar the family has been financially ruined. The deceased was giving Rs. 1,000 p. m. to her as household expenses, and therefore, on that basis she claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000.
( 3 ) SMT. Om Wati widow of deceased Shiv Singh has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 40 lacs. According to her the deceased was 40 years old at the time of his death. He was an agriculturist having 40 bighas of land and had taken two plots of 130 bighas of farm CT from Ghaziabad on lease for Rs. 2,43,000 for a period of 15 years. He was owning a tractor with which he was cultivating his land. He also had land in his name and in the name of his mother. He was earning Rs. 3,000 p. m. from the cultivation of these lands and thus entitled to a compensation of Rs. 40 lacs.
( 4 ) KRISHAN Lal and Bhagwanti Devi claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000 being parents of the deceased Satpal, who was 25 years old at the time of his death. Satpal was earning about Rs. 1050 p. m. as per his income tax return. He was unmarried at the time of his death.
( 5 ) A joint written statement on behalf of Driver and owner of truck was filed by the counsel of Insurance Company taking the plea that the entire negligence was that of the cai driver. The driver of the car and the two occupants were under intoxication at the time of the accident. That the car was being driven on the wrong side of the road. It is in fact the car driver who hit the truck by coming on the wrong side of the toad. That there was no negligence of the truck driver. Respondent No. 3 the Insurance Company took the plea of limited liability to the extent of Rs. 50. 000 for events. In the replication ths petitioners denied all these allegations.
( 6 ) THERE are two eye witnesses to this accident namely Constables Nanu Ram and Rattan Lal, Public Witness 4 and Public Witness 7. They testified that the tiuck was being driven rashly and negligently. The respondent on the other hand adduced the evidence of the truck driver to prove that the negligence was that of the car driver. So far as the accident is concerned, it is not disputed. It is also not dispuled that the truck was being driven by Mohd. Din, respondent No. 1. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was due to contributory negligence of the truck driver to the extent of 70% and of the car driver to the extent of 30%. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar at Rs. 600 p. m. , out of which l/3rd deduction was made on account of personal expenses and dependancy income assessed at Rs. 400 p. m. So far as the age of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar. it was adm
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
