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

2022 Supreme(Guj) 514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.J. DESAI, ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, JJ.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
DEEPAKKUMAR RATILAL KHANDRIYA – Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 1786, 1787, 1788 of 2005, Civil Application No. 1 of 2021
Decided On : 04-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : G.C. MAZMUDAR, H.G. MAZMUDAR.
For the Respondents: HRIDAY BUCH, KARUNA V. RAHEVAR.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence and liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the application of principles for calculating compensation, including future income and multiplier considerations.

Headnote:

negligence - Motor Accident Claims - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166, Section 168, Section 171] - The court discussed the negligence of the driver of the Luxury Bus and the liability of the Insurance Company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 166 (Duty of the driver to give information), Section 168 (Duty of the owner to give information), and Section 171 (Duty of the insurer to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured). The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions, holding the driver of the Luxury Bus solely negligent and the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a vehicular accident between a Maruti Car and a Luxury Bus, resulting in the death of two persons and injury to another. The claimants filed Motor Accident Claim Petitions seeking compensation from the driver, owner, and Insurance Company of the Luxury Bus. The Tribunal held the driver of the Luxury Bus negligent and the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the driver of the Luxury Bus solely negligent for the accident and held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The court analyzed the evidence, including the Panchnama and map of the accident site, and concluded that the driver of the Luxury Bus was driving in a rash and negligent manner.

Issues: The main issues raised were contributory negligence on the part of the Maruti Car driver and the calculation of compensation, including future income and multiplier considerations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the driver of the Luxury Bus was solely negligent, modifying the compensation awarded to the claimants based on the evidence and legal principles. The court applied the principles of standardization, determination of future prospects, and selection of multiplier as established in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others.

Final Decision: The court modified the compensation awarded to the claimants, reducing the amounts based on the calculation of future income and multiplier considerations. The court dismissed one appeal and partly allowed two appeals, confirming the compensation awarded to the injured claimant.

JUDGMENT :

A.J. DESAI, J.

1. The present group of Appeals arise from the common judgment and order dated 28.1.2005 rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 186, 191 and 190 of 1994. By the said judgment, the Tribunal has held the driver of the Luxury Bus having Registration No. GJ-1-U-1266 negligent in the vehicular accident in question and held the Insurance Company of the said Luxury Bus i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited, appellant herein, liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

2. The case in nutshell is as under:

    2.1 That on 23.9.1993 at around 02.00 a.m. on Ahmedabad-Rajkot National highway in between Chotila and Sayla near Doliya boundary, one Maruti Car bearing Registration No. GJ-3B-9215 and Luxury Bus having Registration No. GJ-1-U-1266 collided with each other and two persons sitting in the Maruti Car lost their lives and one person sitting in the Maruti Car got injured.

2.2 It is further the case of the claimants that on the said date, Prabhatbhai was driving the Maruti Car and along with him Dipakkumar Khandheriya and Prabhatbhai Raydhanbhai Karetha and one Mahendrabhai Raydhanbhai Karetha were travelling. They were returning from Gandhinagar to Rajkot and the said Maruti Car was being driven by Prabhatbhai Karetha in a moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. They had left Gandhinagar in late evening and when they reached near Doliya boundary at around 2.00 a.m. on 23.9.1993, Luxury Bus No. GJ-1-U-1266 which was operated in the name of Pavan Travels which was driven by Devshibhai Mashribhai Mer in full speed and in negligent manner, came in wrong side and dashed with the said Maruti Car and due to the said accident, Dipakkumar Khandheriya and Prabhatbai R. Karetha succumbed to the injuries on the spot whereas Mahendrabhai Karetha sustained injuries and he was immediately shifted to the Hospital.

2.3 Thereafter, FIR was lodged, panchnama was drawn, map was also drawn, etc. formalities were carried out by the concerned Agency. Legal heirs of deceased Dipakkumar Khandheriya filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 186 of 1994 and claimed compensation of Rs. 80 Lacs from the respondents herein. Similarly, legal heirs of deceased Prabhatbhai Raydhanbhai Karetha filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 191 of 1994 and claimed compensation of Rs. 35 Lacs. Likewise, injured claimant i.e. Mahendrabhai Karetha filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 190 of 1994 and claimed compensation of Rs. 5 Lacs from the respondents i.e. driver, owner and Insurance Company i.e. present appellant. They also produced several documents in support of their claim.

2.4 The appellant Insurance Company resisted the claims by filing written statement at Exh.29 and 24 in the respective Claim Petitions and contended that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti Car and also contended that the amount claimed by way of compensation is on the higher side.

2.5 The Tribunal framed issues and after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence led, ultimately held that the driver of the Luxury Bus having Registration No. GJ-1-U-1266 is solely negligent in driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner in the vehicular accident in question and the appellant Insurance Company being the insurer of the vehicle in question is liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 69 Lacs towards compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Dipakkumar Khandheriya (Claimants of MACP No. 186 of 1994), awarded an amount of Rs. 26,10,000/- towards compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Prabhatbhai Raydhanbhai Karetha (Claimants of MACP No. 191 of 1994) and awarded an amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- towards compensation to the injured claimant i.e. Mahendrabhai Karetha (MACP No. 190 of 1994). The above amount was awarded by the Tribunal with running interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application

    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