SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Del) 190

High Court Of Delhi
DINA NATH - Appellant
Versus
DES RAJ - Respondent
Decided On : 04/25/1989

The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for the negligence of his driver, even if the driver is not an employee.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - LIABILITY OF OWNER - NEGLIGENCE OF DRIVER - COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT.

Fact of the Case:

A motor vehicle accident occurred on Najafgarh Road, resulting in multiple injuries to the petitioner, Des Raj. The Tribunal held the owner of the offending vehicle, Dina Nath, liable for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs. 32,000. The owner appealed, contending that the injured was responsible for the accident due to his own negligence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the owner failed to produce any evidence to support his claim that the injured was responsible for the accident. The court also found that the medical evidence supported the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the injured.

Issues: 1. Whether the owner of the offending vehicle was liable for the accident. 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for the negligence of his driver, even if the driver is not an employee. 2. The assessment of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases should consider the pain, suffering, and loss of livelihood suffered by the injured.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the owner's appeal and the injured's cross-objections. The court upheld the Tribunal's award of compensation of Rs. 32,000.

S. B. Wad

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by Dina Nath, the owner of offending vehicle No. DLG 9246 which caused multiple injuries to the petitioner Des Raj (here respondent No. (1) in an accident caused on 16th December, 1968 on Najafgarh Road. Appellant No. 2 is Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. which is no more in existence after the nationalisation of the insurance companies.

( 2 ) THE Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the said truck No. DLG 9246 and awarded a sum of Rs. 32,000. 00 as compensation. The injured/claimant was 46 years old at the time of accident and his income was Rs. 225. 00 p. m. He was working with one Modern Electrical Manufacturing Corporation. It is an admitted fact that after the accident, he was not taken up on duty by the manufacturer.

( 3 ) AFTER the accident the injured-claimant was taken up to Willingdon Hospital in an unconscious state. Dr. K. N. Jain, who attended on him, had found that he was bleeding from his left ear and nostrils and had a wound in the skull region. He had also a fracture of right clavicle and compound fracture of both bones of left leg. He was discharged from the hospital on 6th January, 1969. According to the claimant after the discharge from Willingdon Hospital he went to Meerut and continued the treatment there for about eight months. On his return from Meerut. he started the treatment from Orthopaedic Department of Tirath Ram Hospital. He claimed that even after six or seven years he is not completely cured. He had lot of difficulties in standing and doing other activities. He had developed abnormal behaviour also. One Dr. T. R. Chadha, who had allegedly examined the claimant in Willingdon Hospital on 20th December, 1968, said that the injured was under plaster and practically unconscious. After five/six months he again examined him and he found that apart from the physical infirmities of vertigo and shortening of leg he has suffered in his mental abilities and has become schizophrenic.

( 4 ) THE evidence of Dr. T. R, Chadha is strongly attacked by the counsel for the appellant. It is stated that Dr. Chadha was only a Homeopathic doctor and was not working in Willingdon Hospital at all. It was also stated that he has exaggerated the ailments from which the injured was suffering. It was also stated that Public witness 11 who had brought the record of the Willingdon Hospital had not stated that Dr. Chadha was working in Willingdon Hospital at the relevant time. However, no such question has been put to Dr. Chadha in the cross-examination. Even his diagnosis and state of injury of the claimant is not challenged in the cross- examination. Even if the evidence of Dr. Chadha is ignored for the time being, evidence of Dr. K. N. Jain of Willingdon Hospital is quite convincing and would show the seriousness of injuries received by the injured-claimant. From the nature of injuries described by him, it is possible that due to trauma the petitioner had lost his normal mental composure and also had his leg permanently infirmed.

( 5 ) HAVING seen this medical evidence and the nature of injuries, we may now go to the main contention of the appellant. According to the appellant the injured himself was responsible for the accident because while turning on Najafgarh Road he did not watch out the truck coming at a short distance. But this story is not supported by any evidence at all. In fact no evidence was produced by the appellant in the Tribunal; even the driver was not examined. It is a submission of the appellant that the driver was the relative of Public Witness 4, one of the eye-witnesses, and, therefore, he did not prefer to appear for the appellant. The driver was himself one of the respondents and he preferred not to appear after service of notice. In these proceedings the finding of negligence has to be recorded on preponderance of probabilities, therefore, both, the appellant and the respondent, must lead appropriate evidence in support of thei




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top