Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.
Kishan Gopal & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Lala and Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7137 of 2013
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.21139 of 2011)
Decided on 26.8.2013
Key Points: - The appeal held that the death occurred in a tractor-trolley accident caused by rash and negligent driving, and the Insurance Company did not rebut the evidence nor obtain Section 170(b) permission; the judgments of Tribunal and High Court were set aside. (!) (!) (!) - Notional income for a non-earning 10-year-old deceased was determined at Rs. 30,000 per annum, with multiplier 15, plus Rs. 50,000 under conventional heads, resulting in a total compensation figure and 9% interest. (!) (!) - The final award granted was Rs. 5,00,000 with 9% interest, and a direction to pay via demand draft within six weeks. (!) (!) (!) - The evidence showed the deceased was traveling in the trolley of the tractor driven rashly and negligently, and the driver/owner faced IPC/SMV Act charges; the Insurance Company failed to present rebuttal evidence or contest merits. (!) (!) (!) - The Insurance Company had not contested merits due to lack of Section 170(b) permission, and there were contradictions in witness statements; the Court emphasized comprehensive evaluation of oral and documentary evidence in the absence of rebuttal. (!) (!) (!) - The Court noted the need to consider notional income for children and applied relevant principles to award just compensation beyond the Tribunal/High Court findings. (!) (!)
V. Gopala Gowda, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 15th March, 2011 passed in SBCMA No.1283 of 2000 by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, affirming the judgment and award dated 25.5.2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC case No.7/93, urging various relevant facts and legal contentions in support of their claim made in this appeal.
2. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find out whether the appellants are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this appeal. The appellants are the parents of the deceased Tikaram, who died in a road accident on 19.07.1992 on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle tractor bearing registration No. RJX 5532 by the driver, as he was traveling in the trolley which was turned upside down and he fell down from the trolley and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The FIR was registered with the Police Station Uniara, Tonk being case No.121/92. After investigation in the case, charge-sheet No.81/92 (Ex.2) was filed on 30.07.1992 against the first respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle and its owner the respondent No.2. A site map (Ex.3) was drawn up, post-mortem of the deceased was conducted and post-mortem Report was marked as Ex.7. The claimants, being the appellants-parents, who have lost their son at the age of 10 years in the motor vehicle accident and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 - the Insurance Company, preferred claim petition under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ‘M.V. Act’) claiming compensation for Rs.15,63,000/- under the headings of loss of dependency, mental agony, loss of love and affection, expenses incurred for carrying dead body and performing last rites of the deceased son as per Hindu customs. Further, they have, inter alia, pleaded that the son would have earned a sum of Rs.2000/- p.m. after the age of 18 years and he would have lived upto 70 years, therefore, multiplied by 52 for claiming the financial assistance that he could have rendered to the parents, the same is worked out to Rs.12,48,000/-.
3. Notices were served upon respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. Despite service of notice upon them they did not choose to appear and contest the proceedings and therefore, they were placed ex-parte in the claim proceedings before the Tribunal.
4. The Insurance Company appeared and filed its statement of counter denying the various averments of the claim petition and pleaded that the deceased son of the appellants was not studying and further disputed that there was possibility of earning Rs.2000/- p.m. by the deceased. It was further pleaded that in the FIR, it is mentioned that deceased boy was going in the tractor-trolley, fell down from it on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the first respondent, the deceased son sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. It is further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle had no right to carry passenger in a tractor as it is exclusively required to be used for the agricultural operation and therefore, there is contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued in favour of the owner of the offending vehicle. It is further stated by the Insurance Company that the trolley was not registered and the driver of the offending vehicle did not have the valid licence and hence, it is not liable to pay compensation as claimed by the appellants. On the basis of the pleadings, five issues were framed by the Tribunal for its determination.
5.On behalf of the appellants, Kishan Gopal the father of the deceased was examined as AW-1. He has deposed in his evidence narrating the manner in which the accident took place and marked the documents produced by
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
