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

DELHI HIGH COURT
A.K. Chawla, J.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Appellant
Vs.
MADHU BALA AND OTHERS - Respondent
Mac. App. 225 of 2014 and CM Appl. 11031 of 2017
Decided on : 10-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. S.N. Parashar and Ms. Pankaj Kumari, Advocates

The absence of a driving license held by the deceased does not constitute contributory negligence in a motor accident. The assessment of compensation should be based on legal precedents and factual evidence.

Headnote:

Contributory Negligence - Motor Accident - Motor Vehicle Act - [Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 149, Section 166] - The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and rejected the plea of contributory negligence based on the absence of a driving license held by the deceased. The court also discussed the erroneous approach of the Tribunal in assessing the compensation and modified the compensation payable to the claimant based on legal precedents.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, insurer of a truck involved in a motor accident resulting in fatal injuries, appealed the judgment-award passed by MACT on the grounds of contributory negligence and quantum of compensation. The deceased was driving a scooty with his sister as the pillion rider when the accident occurred. The eyewitness testimony supported the claim that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and rejected the plea of contributory negligence based on the absence of a driving license held by the deceased. The court also discussed the erroneous approach of the Tribunal in assessing the compensation and modified the compensation payable to the claimant based on legal precedents.

Issues: Contributory negligence, Quantum of compensation

Ratio Decidendi: The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The absence of a driving license held by the deceased does not constitute contributory negligence. The approach of the Tribunal in assessing the compensation was erroneous and required modification based on legal precedents.

Final Decision: The court disposed off the appeal, directing the appellant to deposit the remaining amount of compensation with the Tribunal and upheld the modified compensation payable to the claimant.

JUDGMENT/ORDER :

A.K. Chawla, J.

1. By the instant appeal, the appellant-the insurer of truck bearing registration No. PB 13 G 7371 in short, 'the offending vehicle', which was involved in the motor accident resulting into the fatal injuries to deceased Pankaj @ Bharat, in short, 'the deceased', assails the judgment-award dated 14.12.2013 passed by MACT, Rohini (North), on two counts. Firstly, on the ground of contributory negligence. Secondly, as regards the quantum of compensation.

2. In view of the restricted challenge, the undisputed facts are that the deceased was driving a scooty bearing No. DL 9S W 8457 in short, the scooty, and, his sister Ms. Chanda @ Bhagya was the pillion rider, when the accident took place involving the offending vehicle. The claimants- respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to prove their plea that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, examined PW2 Ms. Chanda @ Bhagya Sharma, who, undisputedly, was an eyewitness to the occurrence of the incident. Of course, as per the stated facts, she was the best witness to the incident. Said PW2, in her deposition by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A, has given the sequence of the events, as under :

"I say that on 25.11.2010 time at about 1:55 p.m. my brother Late Sh. Pankaj @ Bharat was going on a scooty bearing no.DL-9S-W-8457 from the side of Village Bawana and towards the side of Kanjhawala in very proper manner on which I was sitting as a pillion rider (my MACT matter has been settled with insurance company) when we reached near small canal Kanjhawala road, Bawana all of a sudden the R-1 (Harnek Singh) came with driving the offending vehicle no. PB-13-G-7371 (HTV TRUCK) in very rashly, negligently in very fast speed and hit to that scooty which was being driven by my brother due to the very forceful impact/hitting my brother expired on the spot first of all he was taken in MB Hospital after that the PM was conducted at BJRM Hospital. My brother was very brilliant student. In the said accident I had also suffered some injuries."

Though, cross-examined, from the foregoing deposition of PW2, nothing emerges, which would cast a shadow of doubt on her such deposition. During her cross-examination, but, for a suggestion to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased, and, that, he was not holding a valid driving license to drive the scooty, nothing else can be deciphered. The appellant-the insurer on its part did not examine even the driver of the offending vehicle, which could be the only other best witness to controvert the deposition of PW2. In the given facts and circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the deposition of eyewitness PW2 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the finding to that effect returned by the Tribunal, does not require any interference by this Court.

3. As regards the plea raked-up by the appellant that in the absence of the DL held by deceased, it be construed as his contributory negligence in the occurrence of the accident, the submission raised, this Court observes, does not find support from either any statute or case law. At least, Ms. Sachdeva has not drawn any attention to. In this background, when, in the given facts and circumstances, it is well established that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the mere absence of driving license by the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident, cannot be assumed to be a case of contributory negligence. Submission raised to the contrary, is therefore, rejected.

4. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation awarded, the Tribunal has proceeded to assess the compensation taking note of the fact that the date of birth of the deceased was 15.08.1992. It is not in dispute. The Tribunal has howeve

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top