Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Naresh Jain and Sarojnei Saksena JJ.
New India Assurance Company Limited
Versus
Swaran Kanta
Letter Patent Appeal No. 1139 of 1985,
First Appeal from the Order No. 385 of 1981,
Cross Objection No. 6 of 1992,
Decided On : MARCH 12, 1997
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 95(2) - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - EXTENT OF LIABILITY - APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY AMONG CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENT DRIVERS - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
A fatal accident occurred involving four vehicles, including a truck parked on the road without warning, a car that hit the truck, another truck that hit the car, and a third car that hit the second truck. The deceased was a passenger in the third car. The claimants, the deceased's widow and minor children, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which dismissed the petition, holding that the accident was inevitable. The Single Judge, on appeal, held that the accident was caused by the negligence of the drivers of the truck parked on the road, the second truck, and the car that hit the second truck, and awarded compensation to the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The Letters Patent Appeal Court held that the learned Single Judge should have apportioned the extent of negligence attributed to all three vehicles involved in the accident, but the claimants were entitled to recover the whole amount of compensation from any of the respondents jointly and severally. The court also held that the extent of contributory negligence of the three vehicles was determined equally at 1/3rd.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in not apportioning the liability of the three vehicles involved in the accident. 2. Whether the extent of liability of the drivers of the three vehicles was determined correctly. 3. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants was adequate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the learned Single Judge should have apportioned the extent of negligence attributed to all three vehicles involved in the accident, as they were held guilty of contributory negligence, but the claimants were entitled to recover the whole amount of compensation from any of the respondents jointly and severally. 2. The court held that the extent of contributory negligence of the three vehicles was determined equally at 1/3rd, as the drivers of the second truck and the car that hit the second truck did not enter the witness box to explain under what circumstances they struck into the vehicle in front of them. 3. The court held that the compensation awarded to the claimants was inadequate and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 1,02,000/-.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal Court dismissed the appeal with costs and allowed the cross-objections filed by the claimants, enhancing the compensation awarded to them.
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. This is Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the letters Patent filed by New India Assurance Company Limited against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1985.
2. Brief facts of the case are that claims petition was filed by respondent-Swaran Kanta, widow of deceased Puran Chand, along with her minor children on May 8, 1978, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, on the basis of the death of Puran Chand, who died in a vehicular accident on December 4, 1977 on the relevant night Puran Chand was traveling in Car No. DLB-9186. The accident took place on G.T. Road near village Larsauli, Police Station Ganour, within the district of Sonepat. Claimants pleaded that truck No. HRA-7831 owned by respondent Manohar Lal and driven by respondent Ram Parsad was standing in the middle of the road on the relevant night without taking any precautions, when car No. DLF-5447 driven by Anil Kumar and owned by Inder Singh came from Delhi and struck into it. In the meanwhile truck No. DHG-2801 owned by Messrs Kohli Transport Company and driven by Charan Singh came from Delhi side and struck into the car, which was already standing on the road. The deceased was traveling in the last vehicle, namely, car No. DLB-9186, which also came from Delhi side and struck into the three vehicles, which were standing on the road after being involved in the accident. It was also averred that deceased was earning Rs. 600/- per month. They claimed compensation of Rs. One lac.
3. Respondents Manohar Lal, Ram Parsad, Inder Singh, Anil Kumar, Kohli Transport Company and Charan Singh remained absent despite service and hence were proceeded exparte before the Tribunal.
4. Before the learned Tribunal the appellant filed an application Under Section 110-C (II-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act for defending the claim petition on merits as their insured Messrs Kohli Transport Company were proceeded exparte. The requisite permission was granted.
5. The learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the accident was inevitable one and was not on account of negligence of any of the vehicles involved in the accident.
6. The learned Single Judge, relying on the statements of PW-5 Deep Chand and PW-7 Prem held that car No. DLF-5447 came from behind and hit into the stranded truck No. HRA-783I. Shortly thereafter another truck No. DHG-2801 came and hit into the said car and finally it was car No. DLB-9186 that struck against the said truck because of this accident Puran Chand, who was a passenger in the last car died at the spot. The learned Single Judge observed that according to these witnesses the accident took place within a few minutes. No suggestion was given to these witnesses to the effect that any of the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident could or could not have avoided this accident with due care and caution, which they should have been expected to exercise in the circumstances. Balbir Singh, driver of car No. DLB-9186 appeared as RW-2 and explained that when he reached Ganour, he saw a truck parked ahead. A truck and a car had already been involved in accident. When he reached near that place, he wanted to swerve his car to the right hand side but found that a Haryana Roadways bus was coming from opposite direction. Therefore, he could not avert his car too being involved in an accident with the vehicles already piled up there. Thus, according to this witness the accident became inevitable so far as he was concerned.
7. Weighing this evidence the learned Single Judge held that primarily it was the negligence of truck No. HRA-7881 as it was being parked on the road without proper warning and that resulted in all the other vehicles hitting into each other thereafter. Thus, the driver of this truck was negligent. The learned Single Judge also held that so far as truck No. DHG-2801 and car No. DLF-5447 are concerned, the burden was on their drivers to show that despite reasonable c
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
