Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M. CHHAYA, HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, JJ.
New India Assurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Nemchandbhai Devraj Galaiya & Others - Defendants
R/First Appeal Nos. 845, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 885, 886, 887, 3266, 3267, 3268, 3269, 3270, 3271, 3272, 3273, 3274, 3275, 3276, 3277, 3278 of 2010 With R/First Appeal Nos. 2849, 2850, 2851, 2852, 2853, 2854, 2855, 2856, 2857, 2858, 2859, 2860, 2861, 2862 of 2009
Decided On : 05-05-2022
The court determined the liability and negligence of the insurance companies involved in a fatal accident involving a Matador and a truck. The court also assessed the quantum of compensation to be paid to the families of the deceased victims.
Fact of the Case:
A fatal accident occurred on Gondal Virpur National Highway No.8 involving a Matador and a truck, resulting in the death of 14 individuals. The families of the deceased filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) seeking compensation from the insurance companies of the vehicles involved.
Finding of the Court:
1. Negligence and Liability: - The Tribunal initially found the truck driver solely negligent but later concluded that both drivers were equally negligent (50:50). - Upon re-appreciation of evidence, the court determined that the truck driver was 80% negligent and the Matador driver was 20% negligent. - The court rejected the insurance company's argument that the truck driver lacked a valid license, as he had a license for driving light motor vehicles and obtained an endorsement for heavy goods vehicles after the accident. 2. Quantum of Compensation: - The court reassessed the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering factors such as prospective income, multiplier, deduction for personal expenses, and conventional heads of compensation. - The court enhanced the compensation amounts for each claim petition, taking into account the specific circumstances and evidence presented.
Issues: 1. Negligence and Liability: - Whether the Tribunal erred in its initial finding of sole negligence by the truck driver and its subsequent conclusion of equal negligence by both drivers. - Whether the truck driver lacked a valid license to drive a heavy goods vehicle, affecting the insurance company's liability. 2. Quantum of Compensation: - Whether the Tribunal erred in determining the quantum of compensation, including prospective income, multiplier, deduction for personal expenses, and conventional heads of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Negligence and Liability: - The court re-evaluated the evidence, including witness testimonies, the FIR, and the panchnama, to determine the extent of negligence by both drivers. - The court considered the nature of the accident, the damage to the vehicles, and the impact of the collision in assessing the negligence. - The court concluded that the truck driver was more negligent due to the size and weight of the truck and the extent of damage caused to the Matador. 2. Quantum of Compensation: - The court re-examined the evidence related to income, disability, and other relevant factors to determine the appropriate compensation. - The court applied the principles established in various judgments to calculate the compensation, including prospective income, multiplier, deduction for personal expenses, and conventional heads of compensation. - The court enhanced the compensation amounts based on the specific circumstances and evidence presented in each claim petition.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals filed by the insurance companies and the claimants. The court modified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, enhancing the compensation amounts for each claim petition. The court directed the insurance companies to deposit the additional compensation within a specified period. The court disposed of all the appeals accordingly, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
R.M. Chhaya, J.
1. Introduction -
1.1 All these appeals arise out of the same accident and the set of evidence adduced before the Tribunal is also analogous. All the claim petitions were dealt with together by the Tribunal and all the appeals were therefore heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
1.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 27.02.2009, passed in MACP Nos. 614/98 and allied claim petitions, insurance company of the Matador, i.e., National Insurance Co. Ltd., has preferred First Appeals No. 2849 of 2009 to 2862 of 2009 and the insurance company of Truck involved in the accident, i.e. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., has preferred First Appeals No. 845 of 2010, 877 to 887 of 2010 and the other insurance company, whereas the original claimants have preferred First Appeals No.3266 of 2010 to 3278 of 2010.
1.3 The insurance companies have preferred these appeals on the ground of liability and negligence whereas the original claimants have preferred these appeals for enhancement.
2. Heard Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of the Matador bearing registration No. GJ-10T-1836 involved in the accident, Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the truck bearing registration no.GJ-03-T-3428, Mr. Tushar L. Sheth, learned advocate for the original claimants in all the appeals and Mr. Brijesh Trivedi, learned advocate for legal heirs of Shri Ibrahimbhai Karimbhai Kalgathar and Mr. Nagesh Sood, learned advocate for the National Insurance Co. Ltd. in the respective First Appeals. We have also perused the original Record and proceedings.
3. Occurrence of accident –
3.1 The accident occurred on 14.03.1998 at about 7.00 pm on Gondal Virpur National Highway No.8. As the record unfolds, about 14 persons ordinarily staying at Jamnagar, were proceeding towards Virpur for darshan of Jalaram Dada in Matador bearing registration No. GJ-10T-1836. As the record further indicates, the Matador was being driven at a moderate speed and about about 7.00 pm between Gondal and Virpur National Highway No. 8A, a truck bearing registration no.GJ-03-T-3428 being driven in rash and negligent manner and according to the claimants, on wrong side, dashed with Matador causing excessive damage to the Matador and in the said accident, 6 males, 4 females and one child succumbed to the fatal injuries and four travellers of the Matador sustained serious injuries. The driver of the Matador also expired in the accident. An FIR was lodged with the Gondal Taluka Police Station being I-CR No. 83/98.
4. Details of the claim petitions filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Jamnagar
4.1 Heirs of deceased Kamleshbhai, i.e., parents and elder brothers preferred MACP No.614/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 51,00,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Kamleshbhai was running business of brass parts in the name and style of Mahavir Industries and used to export it in foreign countries. The claimants claimed that deceased Kamleshbhai was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and was also paying income tax. It is also a matter of fact that wife of Kamlesh, i.e., Varsha @ Vandana also died in the same accident.
4.2 Heirs of deceased Giteshkumar, i.e., wife and mother preferred MACP No.615/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 17,50,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Giteshkumar was running business of brass parts in the name and style of Yash Metals and used to export it in foreign countries. The claimants claimed that deceased Giteshkumar was earning Rs.7,000/- to 7,500/- per month and was also paying income tax.
4.3. Heirs of deceased Mayurbhai, i.e., parents and elder brothers preferred MACP No.616/98 under Sec
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
