1984 Supreme(Raj) 449
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Guman Mal Lodha, J.
Prem Chand - Appellant
Versus
Jasoda and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 128, 129, 130 of 1981 and 22, 99 of 1982.
Decided On : 4-09-1984
The liability of the insurance company in cases of accidents involving motor vehicles is not limited to Rs. 50,000/- as a whole, but extends to Rs. 50,000/- for each accident.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SEC. 110A - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - ONE ACCIDENT MEANS ACCIDENT TO ONE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY NOT LIMITED TO RS. 50,000/- AS A WHOLE - COMPENSATION - DEDUCTION - NOT TO BE MADE - SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION - DYNAMIC AND PRAGMATIC INTERPRETATION REQUIRED.
Fact of the Case:
A truck insured with New India Assurance Company struck a motor cycle from behind, resulting in the death of two persons. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, but limited the liability of the insurance company to Rs. 50,000/- as a whole. The claimants and the owner of the truck filed appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the liability of the insurance company was not limited to Rs. 50,000/- as a whole, but extended to Rs. 50,000/- for each accident. The court also held that the deduction of 25% from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was not justified, and increased the compensation accordingly.
Issues: 1. Whether the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 50,000/- as a whole or extended to Rs. 50,000/- for each accident. 2. Whether the deduction of 25% from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Motor Owner's Ins. Co. Ltd. v. J.K. Modi, which held that the liability of the insurance company in cases of accidents of this nature is not limited to Rs. 50,000/- as a whole for all but, one accident' means accident to one. 2. The court held that the deduction of 25% from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was not justified, as it was based on outdated principles and did not take into account the current social circumstances.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals filed by the claimants and increased the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court also directed the insurance company to pay interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 12% p.a. from two months from the date of the judgment till the date of realization.
JUDGMENT
1. - Three Misc. Claim Petitions (Nos. 1, 6 and 7 of 1977) decided by one common judgment/award dated 16th July, 1981, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur are subject matter of the five appeals before this court.
2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 129 of 1981 and 99 of 1982 relates to the claimants, Ramshree and others. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 128 of 1981 and 22 of 1982 relates to the claimants, Jasoda and others. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 130 of 1981 relates to the claimants, Govind Saran and others, the owner of the motor cycle.
3. These five appeals were heard together. In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 1982, Mr. Srivastava submitted that he would not like to press appeal against the driver-Mohansingh and therefore, it may be heard even though he has not been heard.
4. Now coming to the facts of the accident. It may be mentioned that on 15th December, 1976, Mahendra Singh, husband of Mrs. Ramshree and Purshottam Lal, the husband of Mrs. Jasoda, both, were coming on motor cycle No. RJD 7623 towards Paramdara village from Guhana village. When they turned towards Deeg, on the main Kama route, the truck USO 4427 fully loaded going towards Deeg, struck the motor cycle from behind. Purshottam Lal fell away with jump and the truck crushed Mahendra Singh and the motor cycle was dragged to 30 yards from the site of the accident. Mahendra Singh died on the spot and Purshottam breathed his last in the hospital soon thereafter at Deeg. The motor cycle relates to Hindustan Krishi Yantralaya, Deeg. The truck owner was Premchand and the driver Mohansingh. The truck was insured with New India Assurance Company.
5. The claim petitions were contested on various grounds but, ultimately, the award was given for Rs. 1,12,500/- in favour of Mrs. Ramshree, Ramvijaysingh, Raghvendrasingh, Devendrasingh and Mrs. Bhoodevi, mother of Mahendra Singh; Rs. 47,520/- in favour of Jasoda wd/o Purshottam Lal, Kumari Mamta, Om Prakash and Rs. 3,000/- in favour of Govind Saran the owner of the motor cycle for the damages caused to the motor cycle.
6. The Tribunal held that the total liability of the insurance company cannot be more than Rs. 50,000/- as a whole and apportioned the amount.
7. Prem Chand, the owner of the truck USO 4427, has filed three separate appeals against the common award of the Tribunal, as mentioned above. The claimants have filed appeals only for increase of the amount in the two cases of death.
8. At the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, I have heard the arguments in all the cases together. Even the appeal No. 22 of 1982 which was incomplete has been heard because the respondents are represented by Mr. G.C. Mathur and Mr. H.M. Bhargava and, they have no objection in getting a joint common decision in all these cases.
9. Mr. G.C. Mathur, the learned counsel, who has argued the case on behalf of the owner of the truck, has vehemently submitted that there was no negligence or rashness of the truck driver in the present case and, therefore, all the three awards should be set aside. Mr. Mathur, alternatively argued that there was contributory negligence of the motor cycle driver, also.
10. Mr. Mathur pointed out that, while the truck was going on the main road, the motor cycle came from the side of the road connecting the main road and, therefore, it was the duty of the motor cycle driver to slow down and allow truck to pass. According to Mr. Mathur, the motor cycle dashed and struck and, collided against the said truck after more than half portion of the said truck had already passed from the one side.
11. Mr. Mathur argued that the finding of the Tribunal that truck struck motor cycle from behind is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained.
12. The oral as well as documentary evidence has been referred to by Mr. Mathur at great length and, he took great pains to elaborate his contentions. The claimants in all the cases are represented by Mr. S.C. Srivastava. According to him, the accident did not tak
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
