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

2022 Supreme(Jhk) 1199

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Negar Sultana, W/o. Late Md. Ismail - Appellant
Versus
The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 248 of 2015
Decided On : 15-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Awnish Shankar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Pratyush Kumar.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of contributory negligence and the calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 173 - [MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Section 173] - The court discussed the issues of maintainability of the claim case, contributory negligence, entitlement to compensation, quantum of compensation, and liability to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also considered the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and documents, to determine the contributory negligence and quantum of compensation. The court set aside the finding of contributory negligence and recalculated the compensation amount based on the deceased's income, dependents, and future prospects.

Fact of the Case:

The claimant filed an appeal challenging the award passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of a driver in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants argued that the deceased was driving a van and died in a head-on collision with a truck, while the opposing parties contested the claim's maintainability and alleged contributory negligence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Tribunal wrongly held contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and recalculated the compensation amount based on the deceased's income, dependents, and future prospects. The court directed the Insurance Company to pay the recalculated compensation amount along with interest.

Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the claim case, contributory negligence, entitlement to compensation, quantum of compensation, and liability to pay compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court set aside the finding of contributory negligence as the evidence indicated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck. The court also recalculated the compensation amount based on the deceased's income, dependents, and future prospects.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the court directed the Insurance Company to pay the recalculated compensation amount along with interest.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 17.03.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No.09 of 2012. The appellant prays for enhancement.

2. Claimants claimed compensation on account of death of Md. Ismail. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was a driver of Maruti Van bearing registration No. JH 01K 2591 and was earning Rs.4,000/-per month from the owner of the Maruti Omni Van, but due to accident he died at the spot. It is claimed that the deceased was aged about 37 years. The deceased has left behind his wife, three daughters and a son.

3. The Insurance Company and the owner with respect to the other vehicle involved in the accident, bearing registration No. HR 38K 3809, had appeared before the Tribunal and contested the case. It is their case that the claim case is not maintainable. It is their case that claimant has not made the owner of Maruti Van and its insurer as opposite party. The driver of the Maruti van was not a competent and experienced driver. He lost his life and others at his own fault as he was driving the van very rashly and negligently while he dashed with the other vehicle. The Insurance Company has pleaded that the driver, namely, Dinesh Singh, of offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR 38K 3809 had got no valid driving licence. The driving licence bearing No. 918/90/Prof/HAZ has been issued in the name of Md. Rahim S/o Md. Ibrahim of Chaibasa. The Insurance Company also pleaded that the Maruti van bearing registration No. JH 01K 2591 was carrying more passengers than its seating capacity. Thus, it is the case of the Insurance Company that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation amount. The owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR 38K 3809 has pleaded that his vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed six issues, which are as under: -

    (i) Whether the claim case is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the claimants have got valid cause of action for this claim case?

(iii) Whether this is a case of contributory negligence?

(iv) Whether the dependents of the deceased, on account of death, are entitled to compensation?

(v) What should be the quantum of compensation by which the dependents can be adequately compensated?

(vi) Who is liable to pay compensation?

5. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants whereas the opposite parties have not examined any witness in support of their case. The claimants have brought the following documents on record in support of their claim:-

    Ext. 1 Certified copy of FIR

Ext.2 Certified copy of Charge-sheet

Mark ‘X’ Copy of Insurance Policy

Mark ‘X/1’ Copy of Death certificate

Mark ‘X/2’ Copy of Post-mortem report.

Mark ‘X/3’ Original Birth Certificate

Mark ‘X/4’ Copy of Insurance Policy

Mark ‘Y’ Copy of Driving Licence

Mark ‘Y/1’ Copy of Driving Licence

Mark ‘Y/2’ Copy of Permit.

The Insurance Company brought on record Letter of D.T.O., Hazaribagh bearing letter No.9813 dated 11.12.2012 which was marked as Ext.A.

6. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to a conclusion that the claimants are entitled to compensation on account of death of deceased Md. Ismail. While deciding Issue No.(iii), which is with regard to contributory negligence, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident is a Head-on-Collision and both the drivers of Maruti Van and Truck were negligent at the time of accident. The Tribunal assessed the ratio of negligence in proportion of 40:60 with respect to Maruti Van and Truck. The Tribunal while deciding issue No.(V) regarding quantum of compensation, has come to a conclusion that the quantum of compensation by which the dependents can be adequately compensated by one of t

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