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

1994 Supreme(Raj) 422

Rajasthan High Court
Honble P.P. NAOALEKAR, J.
Oriental Insurance Company and Others - Appellant
Versus
Verda Ram and Others - Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 460 of 1993
Decided On : September 22, 1994

Advocates Appeared:
N.P. Gupta, for Appellants R.K. Mehta, for respondent No. 7 M.L. Garg, for respondent No. 1 to 4 A.K. Rajvanshi, for Respondent owner.

Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sec. 81 and Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951, Rule 151 — Truck was parked negligently covering 6 feet width of the metal road —Truck driver not followed the regulations made for parking of the vehicle and thus, has played the major part in contributing the road accident — The driver of jeep (Vehicle) has also not taken reasonable precautions while driving the vehicle particularly when he has seen the stationary vehicle — Liability of the parties 75% truck owner & its insured and the driver and 25% by the jeeb owner its insured and driver. (Para 14-16)(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sec. 95 (2) (b) - As no extra premium was paid to or charged by the Insurance company covering the additional liability — Liability is limited to statutory liability . (Para 21) Appeal partly allowed

       

Honble NEOLEKAR, J. - This Appel is heard alongwith S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 437/93. The new India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kamla & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 452/93 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Verda Ram & Ors. and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 459 of 1993, Oriental Insurance Co. & Ors. Vs. Kamla & Ons..

(2). With the consent of the advocates appearing for the parties common judgment is delivered in all these appeals as the questions involved are inter-linked and are in regard to one accident.

(3). In an accident two passengers of Jeep, Chhagan Lal and Babu Lal have died. Chhaganlals dependents, Verda Ram, father, Hemi Bai, mother Lila, widow and Late, daughter have filed a claim petition no. 42/88 and claim petition No. 47/88 was filed by Babulals dependents, Kamlabai, widow, Nitibai, mother, Balkishan, Raju, Chetan, sons and Meena, daughter against the New India Assurance Company, which is the insurer of Jeep No. RRT 7286 and the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.-, which is the insurer of Truck No. RJW 3329 and Smt. Mangubai, the owner of the jeep, Nijammudin, driver of the Jeep and Jawana Ram , owner of the truck and Shantilal, driver of the truck.

(4). The Misc. Appeal No. 452/93 and Misc. Appeal No. 437/93 arc filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. challenging the extent of the liability imposed over Insurance Company and the Misc. Appeal No. 460/93 and Misc. Appeal No. 459/93 are filed by the Oriental Insurance Company and by the owner challenging entire award passed by the Claims Tribunal in two Claim Petitions, (i) in Claim Case No. 42/88 and (ii) in Claim Case No. 47/88.

(5). In Claim Case No. 42/88, filed by the dependents of Chhaganlal, the Tribunal has awarded compensation taking dependency 1800 per month and applying the multiplier of 30. The award was made for Rs. 6,48,000/- and Rs. 14,000/- for loss of love and affection, total amount of Rs. 6,62,000/- with 12% interest from the date of application till realisation.

(6). In Claim Case No. 47/88 filed by Babulals dependents, the Tribunal has held that at the time of the death of Babulal, his age was 45 years. His salary was Rs. 5,600/- and dependency of the claimants was Rs. 2,000/- per month. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal was 15 and the claimants were awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- for loss of consortium and for loss of love and affection, total Rs. 3,80,000/-.

(7). In both the claim petitions, the apportionment of the liability was made on Truck 75% and on Jeep 25%. As regards to the New India Assurance Company, its plea for statutory liability of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger only, was rejected. It is held that the Insurance Companys liability is unlimited. On these findings it has been held that the respective Insurance Companies alongwith its owner of the vehicles and the drivers are jointly and severally responsible for payment of the compensation.

(8). Facts in brief are that Chhangan Lal, aged about 28 years and Babu Lal, aged about 45 years, died in an unfortunate motor accident that occurred on 21.2.1988 at 5.30 a.m., near Village Veerwara in Sirohi District, involving a Jeep No. RRT 7286 and Truck No. RJW 3329. The deceased Chhagan Lal was engaged at the relevant time as daily collection agent of the Bank and as an agent of L.I.C. and was earning about Rs. 2,700/- per month and Babu Lal was engaged as the Development Officer in the Life Insurance Company, was drawing the salary of Rs. 5,600/-.

(9). The facts emerged from the evidence of the witnesses, A.W. 3 Mana Ram, M.A.W. 3, Nijjamudin, Ex. A/6 and A.W. 7 Spot Inspection Note and Ex. A/1, A/2 photo graphs, which is not seriously challenged by the appellants and found by the Tribunal are that Chhaganlal and Babulal were travelling in a Jeep. The Truck No. RJW 3329 was standing on Jack-Knife on the road on account of the break-down, covering about 6 feet of the tar road, which has a breadth of 24 feets. The truck was put on a jack removing the back wheels. The truck
















































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