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

1983 Supreme(Del) 57

High Court Of Delhi
SATYA WATI PATHAK - Appellant
Versus
HARI RAM - Respondent
Decided On : 02/25/1983

The court held that the insurance company was liable for the full amount of compensation as it failed to prove the contract of insurance.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - [SECTION 110-A, 110-B, 110-C, 110-D, 95(2), 96(4)] - ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT - INSURANCE - LIABILITY - INTEREST - PRINCIPLES.

Fact of the Case:

Laxman Dutt Pathak, a teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Karala, Delhi, was hit by a truck while crossing the road in front of the school. He succumbed to his injuries on the same day. His widow, minor sons, daughter, and mother filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 34,720 as compensation to the heirs, with the liability of the insurance company restricted to Rs. 20,000.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the truck was involved in the accident and the driver was driving rashly and negligently. The court also held that the Tribunal was justified in believing the eye witnesses and disbelieving the respondents' witnesses. The court further held that the deceased would have lived up to the age of 80 years and worked actively up to the age of 75 years. The court also held that the deceased would have earned more than Rs. six lacs from the date of the accident till the age of 75 years and thus he would have provided a sum of Rs. 4 lacs to his heirs.

Issues: 1. Whether the truck was involved in the accident and the driver was driving rashly and negligently? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any claim in this petition? 3. To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled in this petition? 4. Whether the petition is within time. If not, whether there are any grounds for condonation of delay? 5. Relief.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the truck was involved in the accident and the driver was driving rashly and negligently based on the testimonies of the eye witnesses, the police report, and the log book of the truck. 2. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation as the deceased was the breadwinner of the family and his death caused a financial loss to the family. 3. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 as claimed by them in their application, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the application under Section 110-A of the Act i.e. 14th June, 1968 till realization against the respondents jointly and severally. 4. The court held that the petition was within time as there were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. 5. The court granted relief to the petitioners by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Final Decision: The court enhanced the compensation payable to the appellants to Rs. 1,50,000.00 as claimed by the appellants in their application with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the application under Section 110-A of the Act i.e. 14th June, 1968 till realization against the respondents jointly and severally.

Sultan Singh

( 1 ) THIS appeal under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act ) by the heirs of the deceased is for enhancement of compensation. The other two appeals F. A. O. No. 137 of 1974 and F. A. O. No. 174 of 1974 by the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle are for the dismissal of the application for compensation filed under S. 110-A of the Act. This judgment will dispose of the three appeals.

( 2 ) ON 15th May, 1968 Laxman Dutt Pathak, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of the other appellants died in an accident with Truck No. PNR 5057 on the road in front of Government Higher Secondary School, Karala, Delhi. On 14th June, 1968 his widow, minor sons, daughter and mother of the deceased filed an application under S. 110-A of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. l,50,000. 00 and interest. They have alleged that Mr. Pathak on 15th May, 1968 was going in a bus from Delhi to Karala and at about 8. 20 A. M. along with others he got down from the bus in front of Government Higher Secondary School, Karala, Delhi and was crossing the road for going to the school. At that time Truck No. PNR 5057 driven at a rash and reckless speed came from Delhi side and knocked 349 him down with its front portion, causing him grevious injuries and later he died. The truck was being driven by Hari Ram, respondent No. 1, and it is owned by Ram Narain, respondent No. 2 while it was insured with Oriental Fire and General Insu. Co. (Respondent No. 3 ). The appellants have alleged that the deceased possessed good health and had he not met with the accident, he would have lived a long life of 90 years, that the deceased was a Scholar and used to write books in Sanskrit subject for various classes and that his books were very popular and were prescribed as a course of study by the Directorate of Eduction, Delhi Administration.

( 3 ) THE respondents i. e. the driver, owner and the insurer of the vehicle in their written statements have pleaded that the said truck was not involved in any accident on 15th May, 1968 ; it was on election duty on 14th May, 1968 from 8 A. M. to 10 P. M. under the orders of Truck Union Sisana; the truck remained parked at the office of the said Union upto 7. 30 AM. on 15th May, 1968 ; one Rattan Singh of Kharkhoda booked the truck at about 8 A. M. on 15th May, 19g8 for loading buffaloes, and it left Sisana Union office at about 8 A. M. for Chamaria near Rohtak and reached there at 9. 30 A. M. the same day; the truck remained at Ghamaria upto 10. 30 A. M. and then started for Sisana Union office where it reached at about 12. 30 P. M. and remained there upto 16th morning ; the entry to that effect was made in the office of the Sisana Union; the police seized the vehicle and arrested the driver on I 1th June, 1968. The respondent No. 3 the insurance company has also pleaded that its liability is limited to Rs. 20,000. 00 per accident in terms of the policy.

( 4 ) THE following issues were framed by the trial court : (a) Whether the deceased died as a result of accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. PNR 5057/hrr 372 as alleged ? (b) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any claim in this petition ? (c) To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled in this petition ? (d) Whether the petition is within time. If not, whether there are any grounds for condonation of delay ? (e) Relief.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal by judgment dated 26th February, 1974 held that the application for compensation was within time; that the appellants- claimants were the heirs of the deceased, that truck No. PNR 5057 was involved in the accident and the driver was driving the truck rashly and negligently. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 34,720. 00 as compensation to the heirs. The liability of the insurance company was however restricted to Rs. 20,000. 00. The respondents were directed to deposit the amount within two months failing which interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till rea
































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