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

1988 Supreme(Raj) 546

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.
Tara Chand and ors. - Appellant
Versus
Chokali and ors. - Respondent
Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 of 1983.
Decided On : 9-05-1988

The amount of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is not limited by the maximum amount provided in the Schedule under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Tribunal must determine a just amount of compensation based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110AA - WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT - SECTION 95(2)(A) - COMPENSATION - DETERMINATION - OPTION TO CLAIM UNDER EITHER ACT - MAXIMUM AMOUNT UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT NOT APPLICABLE - JUST COMPENSATION TO BE DETERMINED UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INSURANCE POLICY - OBTAINED AFTER ACCIDENT - COMPANY LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION.

Fact of the Case:

Two laborers, Onkar and Babu, were killed in an accident involving a truck driven by Bardhi Chand. The truck was owned by Tara Chand and Jayanti Lal and was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for their deaths.

Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 9,720/- to the claimants in each case, relying on the maximum amount allowable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Tribunal also absolved the insurance company of its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the policy was obtained after the accident by concealing material facts.

Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in determining the amount of compensation by relying on the maximum amount under the Workmen's Compensation Act instead of determining a just amount under the Motor Vehicles Act? 2. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation despite the policy being obtained after the accident.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act provides an option to claimants to seek compensation either under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, but not under both. The Tribunal erred in relying on the maximum amount under the Workmen's Compensation Act as the yardstick for determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The insurance company failed to prove that the policy was obtained by concealing material facts. The cover note was issued on the same day as the accident, and there was no evidence that the owners knew about the accident before obtaining the insurance.

Final Decision: The appeals and cross-objections were partly allowed. The amount of compensation in each case was enhanced from Rs. 9,720/- to Rs. 16,200/- and apportioned among the claimants. The insurance company was held jointly and severally liable with the owners to pay the compensation and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petitions.

JUDGMENT

1. - These two appeals and the cross-objections have been filed against the award dated 14th September, 1982 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, allowing a compensation of Rs. 9,720/- to the claimants in each of the claim petitions.

2. The accident took place on 15th January, 1974, at Pratapgarh. In the accident the truck No. RJH 850 belonging to Tara Chand and Jayanti Lal was involved. It was being driven by Bardhi Chand driver. Two persons, namely, Onkar and Babu were killed in the accident. They had been employed as labourers on the truck. The truck was used for loading and unloading of stones. To bring stones the truck was taken on kacha road, where it overturned, resulting in the death of Onkar and Babu. Two claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur. Claim Petition No. 14 of 1974, renumbered as 141 of 1978, related to the claim for compensation for the death of Onkar. It was filed by Kalu, father of the deceased, Chokali mother, Sita Bai widow, Puniya brother and Kamli sister. The other claim petition, being No. 15 of 1974, renumbered as 142 of 1978, was for compensation on account of the death of Babu. It was filed by Galla, father of the deceased, Panudi mother, Sita Ram, Gopal, Ram Chand brothers and Kali sister. Shortly stated, the facts, as alleged in the claim petition, were that the truck in which the deceased had been employed as labourers was driven by Bardhi Chand. The accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was also impleaded as a party, as it was alleged that the truck was insured with that company.

3. The claim was contested by the owners and the company. It was pleaded by the owners that the truck on the date of the accident was taken on hire by Galla s/o Rakiya for carrying stones. The labourers. Onkar and Babu, and also the driver, Bardhi Chand, were employed by him. The case of the insurance company was that the truck was insured on 15th January, 1974 itself but it was insured after the accident, by concealing material facts and, therefore, the company was not liable to pay compensation under the said policy.

4. The Tribunal by the award dated 1st April, 1982, has allowed the claim petitions as aforesaid. The Tribunal has found that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Bardhi Chand. It was held that the deceased labourers, Onkar and Babu, as also the driver, Bardhi Chand, were employed on the truck by the owners. Tara Chand and Jayanti Lal, in whose name the truck was registered, were liable to pay compensation for the accident. The Tribunal also found that the insurance of truck was taken after the accident by concealing the fact that the truck was already involved in the accident. The owners had already known about the accident and got the insurance done by concealing this fact. The Tribunal, therefore, absolved the insurance company of its liability to pay compensation. Taking the claim petition filed by Kalu and others in respect of the death of Onkar, the Tribunal held that the deceased Onkar was getting Rs. 3/- per day, i.e., he was earning Rs. 90/- in a month and out of this, his contribution towards his family could be Rs. 45/-per month. The Tribunal held that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the legal representatives of the deceased workman could be awarded a maximum compensation of Rs. 9,720/-only. Making this as a basis, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,720/- as compensation to the legal representatives of deceased Onkar. The Tribunal further held that Kalu Ram had aleady expired while Puniya and Kamli being the brother and sister respectively of the deceased were not entitled to get compensation. Out of the amount of Rs. 9,720/- the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,720/- to Chokali and Rs. 6,000/- to Sita Bai as compensation. In claim petition No. 142 of 1978, relating to the death of Babu, t












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top