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

2024 Supreme(Raj) 404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Smt. Ghisi Bai, W/o. Kanhyalal Sharma & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ram Chandra, S/o. Gheesa Mali & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1115 of 2004 Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1661 of 2004
Decided On : 16-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jagdish Vyas.

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that in motor accident claims, the correct application of multipliers based on the deceased's age and future income prospects is crucial for determining fair compensation, alongside considerations for loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS - Section 173 - The court discussed the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 173, which allows for appeals against the awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court highlighted the importance of determining contributory negligence and the appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation. Key legal provisions included the assessment of future income prospects and the application of established case law regarding compensation calculations, which influenced the court's decision to enhance the compensation awarded to the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

Nupur Bhati, J.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1115/2004

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’), seeking enhancement of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (‘Tribunal’), wherein the learned Tribunal has passed an award of Rs.1,90,000/- and the contributory negligence has been ascertained of the driver the and deceased, to be 50% each, vide order dated 20.03.2004. The appellants have also sought interest to be awarded at the rate of 12% on the award and judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, from the date of filing the petition.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 6/10/2000, Mahavir Sharma, the brother and son of claimant Pukhraj and the Kanhaiya Lal, died in a motor vehicle accident. At the time of the accident, the deceased Mahavir was 19 years old. He worked in the textiles market in Bhilwara, grading clothes on a retail and contract basis, earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000. The accident involved two vehicles: a trailer with registration number HR-55/2445 and a bus with registration number RJ-09-P-1405. The trailer was owned by respondent No.1 and was insured by respondent No.3, and was driven by respondent No.2. The bus was owned by respondent No.4, was insured by respondent No.6, and driven by respondent No.5. The incident occurred around 5:15 PM near the Ajmer Tiraha on the Bhilwara-Ajmer Highway. Mahavir was standing at a passenger waiting area when the trailer, driven recklessly and negligently, collided with the bus, which was also driven recklessly. Due to the drivers' negligence, both vehicles lost control and veered off towards the waiting area, crushing Mahavir under the trailer's wheels, resulting in his immediate death. The appellants/claimants requested for a compensation of Rs.6,10,000/- while indicating the negligence of the drivers involved in the accident.

The respondent No.3 -Oriental Insurance Company while filing response to the claim petition had acknowledged the ownership and insurance status of the trailer. It was claimed that the drivers involved did not possess valid and effective driving licenses at the time of the accident. It was argued that the accident was not caused by the trailer driver’s fault, but due to the negligence and carelessness of the other vehicle. The respondent No.3 denied all other allegations and requested the claim to be dismissed.

The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 while filing response to the claim petition have accepted the ownership and insurance status of the bus. It was asserted that the bus driver did not drive negligently or carelessly and was not at fault. It was also contended that the accident occurred due to the trailer driver’s fault. It was argued that since the vehicle was insured with Respondent No.6, the responsibility for compensation lies with the insurance company. The respondents No.4 & 5 have denied all other allegations and requested the claim be dismissed.

The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while filing reply to the claim petition have acknowledged the ownership of the trailer. It was claimed that the accident was caused by the bus driver’s fault, not the trailer driver’s. It was requested that the claim be dismissed against them.

The Respondent No.6 -New India Insurance Company in its reply has accepted that the bus was insured by them. It was argued that the accident was caused by the trailer driver’s fault and not the bus driver’s. It was also claimed that the drivers did not have valid and effective driving licenses at the time of the accident. The Insurance company have denied all other allegations and requested the claim be dismissed.

On December 21, 2002, an interim award of Rs.50,000 was granted in favor of the claim

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