Back
High Court Of Delhi
GITA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
AMRIK SINGH - Respondent
First Appeal Order 127 of 1981
Decided On : 09/11/1989
MOTOR ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - INSURANCE - LIABILITY - QUANTUM - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTIONS 95, 96, 110-A, 110-B, 110-C - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.
Fact of the Case:
Deceased, a scooterist, died in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. The Tribunal apportioned the responsibility of the accident to the extent of 50% attributed to the deceased and 50% to the respondents. The insurance company's liability was held to be the statutory limit of Rs. 50,000 only.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal erred in holding that the accident took place as a result of contributory negligence by the deceased. The evidence of the eye-witnesses clearly established that the accident was caused mainly due to the negligent driving of the offending truck driver.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident was caused mainly due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle or due to contributory negligence of the deceased? 2. Whether the insurance company's liability is limited to Rs. 50,000? 3. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tribunal erred in disbelieving the eye-witnesses simply because they had said that the offending truck was being driven at a speed of 50 to 60 kilometers per hour and one of them had stated that Amrit Singh truck driver ran away. Negligence also lies in not taking proper precautions while driving a vehicle. The mechanical inspection report of the truck did not support the Tribunal's finding that the front left bumper of the truck had hit the scooter. The site plan and the position of the offending vehicle after the accident clearly showed that the accident was caused as a result of negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck. 2. The insurance policy is comprehensive in nature and it should be as such presumed that the liability of the insurance company is unlimited. However, the insurance company has proved the cover note which clearly shows that the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 50,000. The policy qua the insured is unlimited but qua third party it is limited to the statutory limits. 3. The dependency of the deceased can be safely placed at Rs. 1200 per month as stated by the petitioners in the claim petition. The total annual dependency can be computed at Rs. 14,400 and after applying a multiplier of 13 the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,87,200.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation awardable to the appellants is enhanced to Rs. 1,87,200. Out of the amount the insurer's liability is fixed at Rs. 50,000. The remaining amount of compensation shall be recoverable by the claimants from the other respondents.
( 1 ) THE appellants have filed this appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 31st of January 1981 allowing a compensation of Rs. 54,600 in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased P. C. Gupta who died as a result of motor accident which took place on 29th of December 1977. The liability of the insurance company was held to be the statutory limit of Rs. 50,000 only. The Tribunal concluded that the accident took place as a result of contributory negligence by the deceased and apportioned the responsibility of the accident to the extent of 50 per cent attributed to the deceased and. 50 per cent to the respondents in the claim petition. I shall be adverting to the other details in the subsequent paras of the judgment.
( 2 ) ADVERTING to the facts, the deceased P. C. Gupta was driving his scooter DHE 7115 on 29th of December 1977 at about 1. 52 P. M. It is alleged that soon after he crossed the railway crossing at Shakti Nagar and was negotiating a turn towards Bharat Nagar road, the offending truck No. DHG 5463 which was being driven rashly and negligently overtook the deceased without giving any warning and in the process the rear mudguard of the truck struck the deceased as a result of which the scooter fell on the left side whereas the deceased fell on the right side and was over-run under the back wheel of the truck assaulting in fatal injuries. The deceased was removed to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital where succumbed to the injuries on tile fame night.
( 3 ) IT was further alleged that the deceased was born on 15th April, 1933 and was 44 years and 6 months old on the date of the accident. The deceased held a second division in M. A. (Mathematics) from Delhi University and was supposed to have a very brillient academic career. The deceased was employed as arained Post Graduate Teacher in the Department of Education, Delhi Administration, for about 20 years prior to his death. It was also alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was a talented person resulting in promotion within very short time and on the date of death he was a confirmed Post Graduate Teacher. It was further alleged that his promotion as Principal in the higher grade of Rs. 1100-1600 was likely to happen and that he enjoyed good health and hailed from a family having the tradition of longevity of life.
( 4 ) IT was also urged that the deceased was earning about Rs. 2000 per month which included his salary of Rs. 1411. 50 The remaining earnings, according to the claimants, were being. received by the deceased as a result of taking private tuition. According to the claimants, the deceased was spending more than Rs. 1200 for the maintenance of his family and the claimants demanded the compensation for the loss of earnings upto the age of 58 years.
( 5 ) THE defence set up by respondents I to 3 in their joint written statement was the denial of the averments made in the petition. The allegation attributing rashness and negligence to the driver of the affending vehicle was controverted and a counter version of the accident was given in para 10 of the written statement which is as under :-
"it is stated that the offending vehicle was being driven at a slow motion at the turning of the road and the deceased came from behind driving the sector rashly and negligently and tried to overtake the offending vehicle from wrong side. It was also stated that the driver had warned the deceased by hand signal and by a horn not to overtake at the turning but the deceased did not desist and tried to overtake the offending vehicle from the wrong side at high speed as a result of which the. scooter lost the balance. It is further stated that it was in this manner that the deceased lost control on the scooter as a result of which he struck against the rear wheel of the. truck resulting in this accident. It is also pleaded that it was in this manner that the scooter fell on one side and the deceased was enveloped in between the wh
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
