Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : G.M. Lodha
Darshani Devi - Appellant
Versus
Sheo Ram - Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 215, 226, 228, and 230 of 1984 and 138, 139, 140, 141 and 142 of 1985
Decided On : 09/11/1986
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - ACCIDENT - LIABILITY - APPORTIONMENT - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - PASSENGERS - INSURANCE - LIABILITY - UNLIMITED - COMPREHENSIVE POLICY - BLANK COLUMNS - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
A car and a trailer collided, resulting in the death of the car driver and injuries to the passengers. The Tribunal apportioned the negligence and liability equally between the car driver and the trailer driver. The car owner and the legal representatives of the deceased car driver appealed for an increase in compensation. The trailer owner and the insurance companies did not appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the primary responsibility for the accident lay with the trailer driver, who took the trailer on the reverse side without a light or a signal. The car driver was also negligent for driving without a wiper in rainy conditions. The court apportioned the liability as 90% to the trailer driver and 10% to the car driver.
Issues: 1. Who was responsible for the accident? 2. Whether the passengers were also liable for contributory negligence? 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper? 4. Whether the insurance companies were liable for the accident?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the primary responsibility for the accident lay with the trailer driver, who took the trailer on the reverse side without a light or a signal. The car driver was also negligent for driving without a wiper in rainy conditions. The court apportioned the liability as 90% to the trailer driver and 10% to the car driver. 2. The court held that the passengers were not liable for contributory negligence. The court reasoned that passengers in Indian conditions have no control over the driver or the vehicle and cannot be expected to inspect the vehicle or supervise the driver's conduct. 3. The court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and increased the compensation for each claimant. 4. The court held that the National Insurance Company, which insured the truck, had unlimited liability because the policy was comprehensive and the column for the amount of liability was left blank. The court also held that the New India Assurance Company, which insured the car, had unlimited liability for the passengers because the policy was subject to an endorsement that provided for unlimited liability.
Final Decision: The court increased the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to each claimant. The court also held that the National Insurance Company and the New India Assurance Company were liable for the accident.
G.M. Lodha, J.-These nine appeals, bearing Nos. 226 of 1984, 230 of 1984, 228 of 1984, 215 of 1984, 141 of 1985, 42 of 1985, 139 of 1985, 140 of 1985 and 138 of 1985, all arise from one accident in which a number of persons were injured and two, including the driver-cum-owner, were fatally injured. All the claimants have filed appeals for increase of the compensation awarded by the Accidents Claims Tribunal. The owner of the truck, M/s. Oriental Road Lines and the claimants, who are legal representatives of the deceased driver-cum-owner of the car have also filed appeals. None of the insurance companies have come in appeal.
2. Theunfortunate accident happened on January 28, 1978, at about 5.30 a.m. when the car bearing registration No. RSG 214 collided with a trailer No. RSR 3125 in front of the residence of the Collector on Jai Singh Highway, Jaipur. The result was the death of the taxi driver and the occupants of the taxi also sustained grievous injuries and one Shankari Devi died.
3. Thefirst point which requires consideration is as to who was responsible for the accident. The evidence recorded shows that PW 1, Nawal Kishore, stated that the car No. RSG 214 was running when a truck came from the opposite side. The car driver, on noticing the truck from the opposite side, diverted the car to the left side. At that time, a trailer came in the reverse direction and collided with the car. The trailer was not having the back light nor was there any person to give any signal or indication that the trailer was coming in the reverse direction. The reason for the accident was that the trailer came in the reverse side without any signal or light and the car had no wiper. Gopi Ram’s statement is also similar. According to him, the trailer came in the reverse direction without a light or signal and that resulted in the accident with the car. He also mentioned that the car had no wiper and that it was raining at that time. According to him, the responsibility lies more on the driver of the trailer than on the driver of the car. AW 4, Sulochana, has stated that the car was going fast. Anup Agarwal, AW 7, has stated that the car was going fast. Anup Agarwal, AW 7, has also stated that the car had no wiper, and the driver drove the car in spite of the absence of wiper even when it was pointed out by the grandfather.
4. Thetrailer had no horn, no light in the back and no indication that it was coming on the reverse side. According to this witness, both are equally liable.
5. Bhagchand, khalasi of the trailer, had tried to fix the responsibility on the car driver by saying that the car came rashly and negligently with high speed. Wazid Ali had supported him.
6. Now, after “analysing the evidence, it is obvious that the accident happened primarily on account of the fact that the trailer came on the reverse side without a light and without there being any person giving a signal nor was any horn given. It is significant that when a heavy vehicle like a trailer decides to go on the reverse side and no signal is given, no horn is given, no light in the shape of back light, then it is bound to create problem for the incoming vehicle whose driver would notice it at such a time and occasion when the accident would become imminent and there would be no escape. The fact that the truck was coming on the front side and that the car driver had no option but to divert the car to the left side would show that the car driver was not at all at fault. However, his fault was that he was driving the vehicle without a wiper. It has come in evidence that there were rains although it was not the rainy season, because it was January. Even then, not having wiper and that too in a taxi is certainly negligence, though it may be of very minor significance.
7. The Tribunal has apportioned the negligence, rashness and responsibility of this accident equally, i.e., 50:
1.50. I am of the opinion that it is not correct. Primary responsibility and liability for this
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
