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

2018 Supreme(Gau) 1016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.
Jyoti Brahma - Appellant
Vs.
State of Assam and Others - Respondent
Motor Accident Claims Appeal No. 132 of 2009
Decided On : 14-09-2018

Advocates Appeared:
J. Sarma, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between contributory negligence and composite negligence, and the entitlement to full compensation in cases of composite negligence.

Headnote:

Motor Accident - Compensation - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166] - The court discussed the involvement of two vehicles in the accident and the liability of each vehicle. It referred to the difference between contributory negligence and composite negligence as established in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. The court held that it was a case of composite negligence and the claimant was entitled to full compensation from the vehicle involved in the accident. The court also considered the proper multiplier for assessing the deceased's income and awarded compensation based on future prospects and other relevant factors.

Fact of the Case:

The claimant sought compensation for the death of her son in a motor accident. The tribunal awarded compensation, but the wife of the deceased filed an appeal for enhancement of the award, citing improper assessment and entitlement to additional compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the claimant was entitled to full compensation from the vehicle involved in the accident due to composite negligence. It also determined the proper multiplier for assessing the deceased's income and awarded enhanced compensation to the appellant.

Issues: Proper assessment of compensation, entitlement to enhanced compensation, and the liability of the vehicles involved in the accident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it was a case of composite negligence and the claimant was entitled to full compensation from the vehicle involved in the accident. It also considered the proper multiplier for assessing the deceased's income and awarded compensation based on future prospects and other relevant factors.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was awarded enhanced compensation from the date of the original award with interest.

JUDGMENT :

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State Respondent nos.1 and 2.

2. The present appeal was preferred against the Award dated 15.12.2004 passed in MAC Case No. 735/2000 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup. Briefly stated the case of the claimant is that on 22.12.1999 at about 12 PM one Lakhindar Brahma was proceeding in a vehicle No. AS-30-1266 from Guwahati towards Haflong and at that time the said vehicle dashed against another truck coming from the opposite direction and as a result said Lakhindar sustained grievance injury on his person and subsequently he died in the hospital. The mother of the said deceased Lakhindar filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for compensation on account of death of her son stating that wife of the deceased had left the house after the incident.

3. The learned Tribunal issued notice to the owner, driver and insurer of the aforesaid vehicle and they contested the case by filing W.S., contending interalia that the offending vehicle was a LPG truck which fled away in the darkness of the night. It is submitted that the accident took place due to the said unknown truck which fled away but not for the fault of the driver of 407 Truck No. AS-30-1266 and as such the answering opposite-parties are not responsible for the said incident. By examining the case, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues and after examining the claimant and her witnesses came to the findings that the son of the claimant died in the said accident for the fault of both the vehicles and one of which is police vehicle and other vehicle could not be identified. It was also found that due to the involvement of both the vehicles the liability of the police vehicle will be to the extent of 50%. Accordingly, on the calculation being made on the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month and taking the multiplier as 13 after deducting the 1/3rd income the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,36,000/- to the claimant, directing the insurance company of the truck to pay the 50% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 2,18,000/-. The learned Tribunal also observed that as the wife of the deceased (the present appellant) live separately so she should not be deprived of her legitimate rights from getting compensation and accordingly awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- to the parents of the deceased and balance amount was directed to be given to the wife of the deceased i.e. the present appellant.

4. The wife of the deceased i.e. the present appellant was not aware of the said case as she was not made party to the claim case and subsequently she came to know about the award while a part of the amount was given to her. Subsequently with the leave of the Court the wife of the deceased has come forward with the present appeal for enhancement of the award on the ground that assessment of the said award is not proper inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has not taken the proper multiplier which is Rs. 17 as per the age of the deceased who is 29 years of age and also the fact that the appropriate amount under the head Consortium as well as Future Prospect of the deceased is not awarded by the learned Tribunal to which she is entitled.

5. On the basis of aforesaid prayer for enhancement in the present appeal the respondent including the original claimant was notified but the claimant Kumuda Barman/respondent no.4 did not come out to contest the matter despite service of notice. On the other hand the State Respondents contested the case before this Court.

6. Heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the LCR. Obviously the present appellant was not a party to the said claim case but her legal rights and entitlement was recognised by the learned Tribunal for which, the learned Tribunal has awarded portion of her com








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