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

1985 Supreme(P&H) 487

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Pritpal Singh, J.
Shri Hans Raj
Versus
Neelam Chopra
First Appeal from Order No. 177 of 1983,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 13, 1985

The liability for compensation in a motor vehicle accident is determined based on the negligence of the driver, the dependency of the claimants, and the quantum of compensation is assessed considering various factors such as loss of income, medical expenses, and pain and suffering.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION - SISTER OF DECEASED NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION - FINANCIER OF VEHICLE NOT LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT.

Fact of the Case:

A fatal accident occurred involving a scooter driven by the deceased and a truck driven by the respondent. The deceased's mother and sister filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the truck driver, owner, insurance company, and the bank that financed the truck. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the mother, sister, and an injured passenger on the scooter.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The sister of the deceased was not entitled to claim compensation as she was not a dependent. The bank that financed the truck was not liable to pay compensation as it had no control over the vehicle. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive.

Issues: 1. Who was responsible for the accident? 2. Is the sister of the deceased entitled to claim compensation? 3. Is the bank that financed the truck liable to pay compensation? 4. What is the quantum of compensation that should be awarded?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the testimonies of eyewitnesses and photographs to conclude that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. 2. The court held that the sister of the deceased was not entitled to claim compensation as she was not a dependent, relying on a Full Bench decision of the court. 3. The court held that the bank that financed the truck was not liable to pay compensation as it had no control over the vehicle, relying on an earlier judgment of the court. 4. The court assessed the quantum of compensation based on the deceased's income, dependency of the mother, loss of salary and medical expenses of the injured passenger, and awarded a reasonable amount.

Final Decision: The appeals filed by the bank were allowed, and the claim petitions against the bank were dismissed. The appeals filed by the truck driver, owner, and insurance company were partly allowed. The claim petition of the sister of the deceased was dismissed. The mother and the injured passenger were awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 each, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the dates of their respective claim petitions.

Judgment

Pritpal Singh, J.

1. An accident took place on December 23, 1978 at about 11.30 a.m. at the crossing of sectors 34/35, 43/44 at Chandigarh in which the scooter driven by the deceased Mohan Lal Suri, and the truck driven by Shri Chand respondent were involved. Neelam Chopra was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter. As a result of the accident Mohan Lal Suri died at the spot and Neelam Chopra sustained injuries. The truck belonged to Hans Raj respondent and it was insured with the New India Assurance Company. The truck was financed by the Punjab and Sind Bank. In the wake of the accident two separate claim petitions under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act were filed against the aforesaid Shri Chand, Hans Raj, New India Assurance Company and the Punjab and Sind Bank; one by Smt. Maina Wati and Sunita Suri, mother and sister respectively of the deceased Mohan Lal Suri and the other by the injured Neelam Chopra. Both the petitions, having arisen out of the same accident, were tried jointly by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh.

2. The case of the claimants before the tribunal was that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver Shri Chand. This was denied by Shri Chand and Hans Raj respondents. According to them the negligence on the part of the deceased Mohan Lal Suri had resulted in the accident. They also challenged the right of the deceaseds sister to claim compensation. The Insurance Company toed the line of the Insurer Hans Raj, owner of the truck, and pleaded that in any case its liability is restricted to Rs. 50,000/- in each of the two ceses. The Punjab and Sind Bank denied its liability to pay any compensation due to the accident. The Bank contended that, simply because it had financed the truck, no liability for payment of compensation can be fixed on it.

3. The Tribunal, on appraisal of evidence, held that the accident was attributable to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver Shri Chand. The sister of the deceased Mohan Lal Suri, namely Sunita Suri was found entitled to claim compensation on account of her brothers death. She and Smt. Maina Wati, mother of the deceased, were granted compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- against all the four respondents. Neelam Chopra was also awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the respondents. In both the cases interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization was allowed on the amounts of compensation. The liability of the Insurance Company was declared limited to Rs. 50,000/- in each case.

4. From these two awards of the Tribunal four appeals have arisen; two filed by Shri Chand, Hans Raj and the Insurance Company and the other two by the Punjab and SInd Bank (F.A.O. Nos. 177, 260 of 1983 and F.A.O. Nos. 272 and 273 of 1983 respectively). In these appeals the two awards of the Tribunal granting compensation to the mother and sister of the deceased and to the injured Neelam Chopra have been assailed. The claimants have also filed cross-objections in all the four appeals. Common questions of fact and law being involved in all the four appeals and the cross-objections the same are being decided together.

5. The foremost question for determination is as to who was responsible for the accident. Admittedly, the deceased Mohan Lal Suri was going on his scooter from the side of Attawa and was proceeding towards Burail. The truck driven by Shri Chand came from the side of Aroma Hotel. Both the vehicles collided at the crossing of Sectors 34/35-43/44. Neelam Chopra claimant who was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter appeared as PW 8 and gave description of the accident. She stated that some drums were placed in the middle of the crossing. When the scooter had crossed the drums, the truck driven at a high speed came from the side of Aroma Hotel and hit the scooter. The deceased Mohan Lal Suri fell down with the impact whereas she herself was dragged along














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