Back
High Court Of Delhi
CHANDRO DEVI - Appellant
Versus
JIT SINGH - Respondent
First Appeal Order 16 of 1976
Decided On : 03/14/1988
The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the appellants as the insurance policies were not proved in accordance with law. The court also held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited as the insurance company failed to prove that the policy in question was an 'act only' policy. The court further held that the appellants were entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire amount of compensation from the date of compensation application.
Fact of the Case:
Bhartu, a truck driver, was killed in an accident involving two trucks. The appellants, Bhartu's widow and children, filed a petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi seeking compensation. The insurance company denied the claim and the Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles and awarded compensation of Rs. 15,300.00 to the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the appellants as the insurance policies were not proved in accordance with law. The court also held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited as the insurance company failed to prove that the policy in question was an 'act only' policy. The court further held that the appellants were entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire amount of compensation from the date of compensation application.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the appellants? 2. Whether the liability of the insurance company was limited or unlimited? 3. Whether the appellants were entitled to interest on the amount of compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the appellants as the insurance policies were not proved in accordance with law. The court also held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited as the insurance company failed to prove that the policy in question was an 'act only' policy. The court further held that the appellants were entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire amount of compensation from the date of compensation application.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part and modified the award of the Tribunal. The amount of compensation was increased from Rs. 15,300.00 to Rs. 72,000.00. The appellants were also entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the compensation application till payment. The appellants were also entitled to full costs. The insurance company was directed to satisfy the award within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. The cross-objections filed by the owner of one of the trucks were dismissed.
( 1 ) THE present appeal has been filed by appellants under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act ) against the order dated August 22,1975 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi.
( 2 ) CHANDRO Devi, appellant No. 1 and appellant Nos. 2 to 6 are the unfortunate widow and children respectively of deceased Bhartu. The facts in brief are as under: Bhartu son of Shera was residing in village Teha,tehsil Sonepat, Haryana along with his family. On the night of 7/8th July, 1968, Bhartu, now deceased, was coming in motor truck No. PNF 8204 driven by Jit Singh respondent, as owner of his goods consisting of vegetables from his village to Subzi Market, Delhi on G. T. Road. When the truck was near Mile Stone No. 14 on Grand Trunk Road, another truck bearing registration No. PNQ 2409, being driven by respondent Sucha Singh, was coming from Delhi and both the vehicles collided with each other and overturned resulting into injuries to deceased Bhartu and the other persons, who were also on truck No. PNF 8204. Immediately after the accident, Bhartu was taken to Irwin Hospital, Delhi and was admitted there. Later on he succumbed to injuries.
( 3 ) BHARTU had left behind the present appellants. At the time of death, Bhartu left six minor children, i. e. , three daughters and three sons. During the pendency of proceedings appellant Nos. 2 to 6 attained the age of majority and elected to pursue the appeal. Truck No. PNF 8204 was owned by respondent Raj Pal and the other truck No. PNQ 2409 was owned by respondent Avtar Singh.
( 4 ) THE appellants filed an application, being suit No. 316 of 1968, under section 110-A of the Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi thereby claiming a compensation of Rs. one lakh as the legal representatives and dependents of the deceased. In the application, it has been alleged that the aforesaid accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the vehicles by their respective drivers, namely, respondents Jit Singh and Sucha Singh. The vehicles in question were being driven by the drivers in the course of their employment under their respective employers/owners of the truck who are respondents Raj Pal and Avtar Singh. The deceased was possessed of good physique and was in the prime of his life. At the time of his death it was alleged that he was 40 years old and if he had not died in the accident he would have lived upto the age of 90 years. The deceased used to take land on theka and used to cultivate vegetables which grew in abundance. The deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 600. 00 per month on the average. At the time of accident deceased was carrying six bundles of vegetables weighing about 12 maunds worth Rs. 450. 00. It was further alleged that the appellants were wholly dependent on the deceased and had been rendered destitute by the untimely death of the deceased. The petition was filed through Chandro Devi for self and as next friend and guardian of the minors. She is an illiterate lady and she put her right thumb impression on the petition.
( 5 ) RESPONDENTS Sucha Singh and Avtar Singh did not contest the petition and they were proceeded ex parte. At the time of accident both the vehicles were insured with M/s. Calcutta Insurance Ltd. After the nationalisation of the general insurance in India, the said company was later on represented by National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent Jit Singh filed written statement. In his written statement it has been alleged that petitioners had no locus standi to file the claim petition. The vehicles which were involved in the accident, were public goods carriers and the same were not meant for carrying passengers. The allegations made by appellants were also denied. However, it was admitted that the accident took place between the night of 7/8th July, 1968 on G. T. Road. But the plea was that the accident took place on account of the negligent and rash driving on the part of respondent Sucha Si
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
