1987 Supreme(Raj) 560
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
A.K.Mathur, J.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Ratan Lal - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 1983.
Decided On : 18-03-1987
The scope of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act is wide enough to include future earning as a damage to the future property of the claimant.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-D - SECTION 110-F - INTERPRETATION - FUTURE LOSS OF EARNING - COMPENSATION - SCOPE OF SECTION 110 - TRIBUNAL'S JURISDICTION - MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
A truck owned by the claimant was damaged in an accident involving a military truck driven by the appellant. The claimant filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which awarded him damages for the cost of repairs, loss of income, and interest. The appellants, the Union of India and the driver of the military truck, appealed the decision, arguing that they were not liable for the accident and that the claimant had failed to prove the extent of his damages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the military truck and that the appellants were therefore liable for the damages. The court also found that the claimant had sufficiently proved the extent of his damages, taking into account the vouchers he had produced and the fact that strict proof is not required in proceedings before the Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants were liable for the accident and the resulting damages. 2. Whether the claimant had sufficiently proved the extent of his damages.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellants were liable for the accident because the driver of the military truck was negligent in driving at an excessive speed and in failing to avoid the claimant's truck, which was parked off the road. 2. The court held that the claimant had sufficiently proved the extent of his damages by producing vouchers for the parts and repairs that were necessary to fix his truck, and by testifying about the loss of income he suffered while his truck was being repaired.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the amount of damages awarded to the claimant by one-third to account for the fact that the old parts of the truck were replaced with new ones. The court also upheld the award of damages for future loss of earning, holding that the scope of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act is wide enough to include future earning as a damage to the future property of the claimant.
JUDGMENT
1. - This is an appeal against the award of the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 13-10-82.
2. The brief facts, giving rise to this appeal are that on 3rd June, 1979 at about 930 A.M. claimant's truck RJQ 9681 was standing outside his godown in village Fidusar on Jodhpur Jaisalmer Road. At that time, truck No. 281/74F 1010 alongwith trailer No. 7552490H came with an excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner from Jodhpur side and struck against the truck of the claimant and as a result of this the truck of the claimant was damaged. On account of the accident the excel, shaft and back side body of the the truck was seriously damaged. Three tyres of the truck were also damages. Chesis also got little bend. Claimant suffered hide and he got his transport repaired for that he had to pay a sum of Rs. 9171 60 The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 5600/- for period 3rd June, 79 to 28th July, 1979 when the truck remains unserviceble for a period of 56 days. The daily income by the truck was Rs. 100/- therefore, a sum of Rs. 5600/- was claimed for loss of income. Thus Rs. 14,771/- was claimed as damages. The truck was driven by the driver Ram Kripal Singh, who was in the service of non-claimant No. 2. The learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur after considering over the matter, came to the conclusion that non-claimant driver drove the truck in rash and negligent manner and caused damages to the truck of the claimant. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the damages to the extent of money spent by him for repairing the truck. On this head the amount of compensation was quantified to the extent of Rs. 9,234/- which was caused on account of the accident. The truck remained idle for a month and 26 days, therefore, the learned Judge, awarded Rs. 1700/- for loss of business to the claimant on account of truck being remained idle. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 10,934/- was awarded as a compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition till realisation.
3. Aggrieved against this, the non- claimants Union of India and Ram Kripal Singh, driver have filed the present appeal.
4. I have heard both the learned Counsel at length. Mr. Sisodia, learned Counsel for the appellant, strenuously urged that the accident took place by the military truck of the appellant in discharge of sovereign function, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation against the appellant. This application of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in somewhat identical situation their lordships of Supreme Court have not accepted the argument in the matter of such accident. In the present situation, the plea of sovereign function cannot be accepted. Reference in this connection may be made to Pushpa Thakar v. Union of India 1984 ACJ 559 (SC) . In view of this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the contention of the sovereign function cannot be accepted.
5. Learned Counsel has contended that negligence in the present case is not attributable to appellant alone, therefore, the Union of India and the, driver Ram Kripal Singh cannot be made liable.
6. I have considered this argument of learned Counsel and perused the evidence on record and the finding given by the Tribunal. The very fact that the truck was catrying a tank alongwith it and there was sufficient space on road. If the driver of the military truck was little careful then perhaps he would have avoided the accident. The truck of the claimant was standing away from the main road. The plea of the driver that since there was a small passage and a truck from opposite direction was coming therefore, in order to avoid that the later struck against the stationary truck of the claimant. The accident was inevitable and there was no negligence on the part of the military truck driver. I am not inclined to accept this contention of the learned Counsel. Since the driver of the military truck knew very well that the
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
