Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : S.N. Bhargava
Rajendra Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Suman Lata Chaturvedi - Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 107 of 1987
Decided On : 12/18/1992
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 95(2) - TRACTOR WITH COMPRESSOR - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - UNLIMITED LIABILITY - CROSS-OBJECTIONS - CONDONATION OF DELAY - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, LOVE AND AFFECTION, MENTAL AGONY AND PAIN - COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
A fatal accident occurred involving a taxi, a tractor, and a truck. The deceased, Anand Mohan, was a passenger in the taxi when it collided with the tractor, which then hit the truck. The Tribunal found all three vehicles responsible for the accident and awarded compensation to the claimants, the deceased's family members. The owner of the tractor appealed the award, arguing that the tractor was not responsible for the accident and that the insurance company's liability was limited. The claimants filed cross-objections, seeking additional compensation for loss of consortium, love and affection, and mental agony and pain.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the tractor was not a 'goods vehicle' as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore its liability was not limited. The Court also found that the insurance company had not raised the issue of limited liability before the Tribunal and was therefore estopped from arguing it on appeal. The Court further held that the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation for loss of consortium, love and affection, and mental agony and pain, and awarded additional compensation to the claimants under this head.
Issues: 1. Whether the tractor was a 'goods vehicle' as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore subject to limited liability. 2. Whether the insurance company was estopped from arguing limited liability on appeal. 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation for loss of consortium, love and affection, and mental agony and pain.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the tractor was not a 'goods vehicle' as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act because it was not constructed or adapted for the carriage of goods and was not used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers. The Court also noted that the insurance policy described the vehicle as a 'tractor with compressor', which further supported the finding that it was not a 'goods vehicle'. 2. The Court held that the insurance company was estopped from arguing limited liability on appeal because it had not raised the issue before the Tribunal. The Court noted that the insurance company had the burden of proving that its liability was limited, and that by failing to raise the issue before the Tribunal, it had waived its right to do so on appeal. 3. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation for loss of consortium, love and affection, and mental agony and pain. The Court noted that these heads of compensation were well-established in law and that the claimants had suffered significant losses as a result of the deceased's death.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal in part and the cross-objections in full. The Court modified the Tribunal's award to include additional compensation for loss of consortium, love and affection, and mental agony and pain. The Court also held that the insurance company's liability was unlimited.
S.N. Bhargava, J.-This is an appeal under Section 1 10-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short ‘the Act’), against the award dated 210.1986 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,59,200/-in all and interest thereon.
2. As per the facts mentioned in the memo of appeal, on 11.1978, deceased Anand Mohan along with his wife Suman Lata and his daughter and sons left Jaipur for Ajmer in a taxi car bearing registration No. RST 76, of which Respondent No. 9, Asu Singh (since dead), was the driver. Sumitra Pandit, Respondent No. 8, is the owner of the taxi car. When the taxi car came near Sri Nagar bypass, appellant’s tractor bearing registration No. RJS 1372, which was being driven by Banshi Lai, Respondent No. 14, turned towards Jaipur. According to the claimants, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, the car was hit by the tractor on the back side, with the result that the driver of the car lost his control and it hit against a truck No. RRR 4197 which came to halt without giving any indication, as a result of which the taxi car overturned and Anand Mohan died on the spot. He was a Civil Maintenance Engineer and was aged 42 years and was drawing a sum of Rs. 26,966/-per year. The claimants filed claim for an amount of Rs. 10,79,707/-from the owners of the three vehicles and the insurance company with which these vehicles were insured. Sumitra Pandit, Respondent No. 8, denied all the allegations for want of knowledge but admitted that she was the owner of the taxi car and that it was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and that she had given the said taxi car to Ravi Prakash Chaturvedi, one of his servants, for his personal use and the vehicle was not being driven as a taxi car. Asu Singh, driver of the taxi car, did not file any reply to the claim petition. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed a separate reply and admitted that the taxi car. was insured with the company and submitted that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent act of the truck driver and not of the taxi driver and the tractor driver was also not responsible for the accident and, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation and that compensation should be recovered from the owner of the truck, driver or the insurance company with which it was insured. Rajendra Kumar has admitted that he was the owner of the tractor No. RJS 1372 and that it was being driven by Banshi Lai, driver, at the time the accident took place and that it was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It has further been submitted that the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor but the accident took place on account of negligence of the truck driver. Mamraj, truck driver and Nahar Singh, owner of the truck, did not file any reply to of rash the claim petition. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Respondent No. 13, has admitted in reply that truck No. RRR 4197 was insured with it and has further submitted that the truck was stationary at the time the taxi car and the tractor collided. It was after the accident that the car also struck the truck which was standing and since it was not a case of rash and negligent driving of the truck, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal framed the following issues:
Þ1- D;k VSDlh pkyd vklwflag us VSDlh dks ykijokgh o mis{kkiwoZd Vôj ekjh vkSj nq?kZVuk dhA ¼izkFkhZ½
r fn;s ykijokgh o rs
2- D;k VSªDVj vkj- ts- ,l- 1372 dks mlds pkyd cakhyky us fcuk ladstxfr ls pykrs gq, t;ij dh vksj eksM+k o bl dkj.k VSDlh mDr VSªDVj ls VdjkbZ\
3- D;k Vªd vkj- vkj- vkj- 4197 dks mlds pkyd dkukjke us fcuk iowZ ladsr fn;s ykijokgh ls lM+d ij [kM+k dj fn;k o bl dkj.k VSDlh mDr Vªd ls VdjkbZ o bl dkj.k vkuUn eksgu dh e`R; q gqbZ\ ¼izkFkhZ½
4- D;k izkFkhZx.k] izfroknhx.k ls {kfriwjd izkIr djus ds vf /kdkjh gSa\ ;fn gk¡ rks fdl dnj o fdruk] fdl&fdl ls\ ¼izkFkhZ½ 5- D;k ;kfpdk vof /k ckf /kr gS\ ¼vizkFkhZ½ 6- D;k vizkFkhZ la- 1 us VSDlh
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
