Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Akil Kureshi, C.L. Soni, JJ.
Ibrahimbhai Abdulbahi Vora - Appellant
Versus
Jyotshnaben Rajubhai Amin - Defendant
First Appeal No. 501 of 1998
Decided On : 03-05-2012
Negligence - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 149(2), Section 170, Section 173 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor accident claim arising from a collision between a Maruti car and a luxury bus, resulting in fatalities and injuries. The widow and children of the deceased filed claim petitions seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of the luxury bus. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation, which was challenged in appeals by the owner and insurer of the luxury bus.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the owner's appeal was not maintainable due to lack of contesting the claim before the Tribunal. However, the appeals by the Insurance Company were deemed maintainable based on the court's interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant case law.
Issues: The court considered the maintainability of the appeals, the negligence of the bus driver, and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Insurance Company, being impleaded as a party-respondent, was entitled to raise all defences before the Claims Tribunal and in the subsequent appeal. The court also analyzed the evidence to determine negligence and assessed the compensation based on the deceased's income and other factors.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed one appeal, modified the award of the Claims Tribunal, and dismissed the other appeals.
JUDGMENT :
Akil Kureshi, J.
These appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 1.10.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Vadodara in MACP No.1380 of 1991 and connected claim petitions.
2. Brief facts may be noted at this stage:
On 18.6.1991, at about 11.30 p.m., one Rajubhai Ishwarbhai Amin was driving his Maruti Car. In the car, he had along with him, his wife Jyotsanaben, his daughter Sonaben and his sister Sanjuben. When the car was passing from village Gotri in the outskirts of the city of Vadodara, it met with an accident with an on coming luxury bus. Rajubhai, driver of Maruti Car and his daughter Sona both died due to the injuries received. His wife Jyotsanaben received injuries but survived. Claim petition No. 1380 of 1991 was filed by the widow and three children of deceased Rajubhai claiming compensation of Rs. 50,00,000.00 from the owner and insurer of the luxury bus involved in the accident. Claim Petition No. 1381 of 1991 was filed by Jyotsanaben claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000.00 for death of Sona. Claim petition No.1382 of 1991 was filed by Jyotsanaben herself for the injuries received by her claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.00.
3. The Claims Tribunal by common impugned judgment, disposed of all the claim petitions. In Claim Petition No. 1380 of 1991, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 21,50,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. In Claim Petition No. 1381 of 1991, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 60,000.00 with similar interest. In Claim petition No. 1382 of 1991, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 90,000.00 with similar interest.
4. This common judgment of the Claims Tribunal is challenged by the owner and insurer of the luxury bus in First Appeal No. 501/98, 502/98 and 503/98.
5. From the record, it emerges that the deceased Rajubhai was engaged in the business of fabrication. His widow Jyotsanaben was examined at Exh. 59. She gave details of the source of income of the deceased. She also produced certain documents such as Assessment Orders passed by the Income Tax Department on the Tax Returns filed by the deceased. In her evidence, Jyotsanaben had also narrated the manner in which the accident had taken place.
6. Learned advocate Shri Rajni H. Mehta for the appellant vehemently contended that the Claims Tribunal committed serious error in holding the driver of the luxury bus solely negligent for causing the accident. Drawing our attention to the evidence on record, he submitted that the Maruti Car was being driven at high speed due to which the driver had lost control resulting into the accident. At any rate, the driver of the luxury bus cannot be held 100% negligent and at least, part of the negligence must be attributed to the driver of the Maruti car.
7. The counsel further submitted that the Tribunal committed serious error in taking into account the income of the HUF of the deceased Rajubhai and also the income derived by the wife of the deceased as a partner of a partnership firm. He submitted that the Claims Tribunal thereby awarded compensation which was excessive. In short, his contention was that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal should be reduced.
8. To contend that the present appeal was maintainable, the counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Shila Datta and others, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 509.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Hakim for the claimants opposed these appeals. His contention was that the appeals were not maintainable. He pointed out that the appellant no.1 owner of the luxury bus had not defended himself before the Claims Tribunal and the claim petitions were heard ex parte as far as he was concerned. Such owner cannot challenge the award passed by th
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
