Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2711
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
Jai Singh – Respondent
FAO No. 5019 of 2003 (O&M), FAO No. 5020 of 2003 (O&M), FAO No. 3923 of 2004 (O&M), FAO No. 3924 of 2004 (O&M) and FAO No. 3925 of 2004 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-12-2017
For the Appellant : D.P. Gupta, Vinod Gupta
For the Respondent: Naveen Sharma for Sunil Narang, Paul S. Saini and Vipul Sharma
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to support findings of contributory negligence and the apportionment of liability in motor vehicle accident cases.
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Vehicle Accident - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166] - The court discussed the contributory negligence of the drivers involved in the accident and set aside the finding of contributory negligence against the driver of the appellant's vehicle. The liability to make the payment of the awarded amount was fixed upon the insurance company of the offending vehicle.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor vehicle accident where the driver of the appellant's truck and the driver of another truck were involved in a collision. The claimants sought compensation for injuries and death resulting from the accident. The court analyzed the issue of negligence and apportioned the liability between the two vehicles by 50% each.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the finding of contributory negligence against the driver of the appellant's vehicle was not supported by evidence and set it aside. The court absolved the appellant's insurance company of liability and directed the insurance company of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation.
Issues: The main issue was the apportionment of liability between the drivers involved in the accident and the finding of contributory negligence against the driver of the appellant's vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the finding of contributory negligence must be supported by evidence and set aside the finding against the driver of the appellant's vehicle. The liability to make the payment of the awarded amount was fixed upon the insurance company of the offending vehicle.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the appeals, modified the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and directed the insurance company of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation to the claimants.
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.
This judgment shall dispose of five appeal i.e. FAO No. 5019 of 2003 and FAO No. 5020 of 2003; filed by the Insurance Company of the Vehicle No. HR-39-9780, challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short 'MACT') qua the findings on the issue of negligence. Other three appeals, namely FAO No. 3923 of 2004, FAO No. 3924 of 2004 and FAO No. 3925 of 2004 are filed by the claimants; for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them.
2. For convenience, the facts are taken from the appeal No. 5019 of 2003, i.e. the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.06.2001, Gaja Nand was going on a Tuck bearing registration No. HR-39-9780 along with Jai Singh, as co-driver and Vijay Singh as conductor on his truck. Gaja Nand was the main driver of the truck. When they reached near by-pass, Ladnu District Nagaur (Rajasthan), then another truck bearing registration No. PN-6B-7638 came from the opposite side, being driven by respondent-Yodh Raj at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Seeing the truck Gaja Nand, who was driving the truck No. HR-39-9780 took his truck on the extreme left side of the road. However, the truck bearing registration No. PB-6B-7638, struck against his truck. Hence, it was claimed that the accident happened due to the negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. PB-6B-7638 (hereinafter referred as the offending vehicle).
4. In this accident, Vijay Singh, the conductor of the truck of Gaja Nand, had expired. His widowed mother filed claim petition for claiming compensation on account of death of Vijay Singh. Gaja Nand, driver of truck bearing registration No. HR-39-9780 and Jai Singh, the co-driver of this truck received injuries. Therefore, they filed separate claim petitions claiming compensation, on account of their injuries. In the claim petition filed by Gaja Nand, the present appellant, the insurance company of Truck No. HR-39-9780 was not impleaded, as a party, since Gaja Nand was himself the driver of this truck. In claim petitions filed by Jai Singh and the mother of Vijay Singh, though the Insurance Company of this truck was impleaded, however, the negligence in those claim petition was also alleged against the driver of the other offending vehicle.
5. Upon being given the notice, the respondents in the claim petitions filed their respective written statement. The present appellant, the Insurance Company of truck bearing registration No. HR-39-9780 denied the negligence of the driver of its truck in all the claim petitions.
6. The other insurance company of the offending vehicle, filed written statement taking routine preliminary objections. Still further, it was pleaded that the claim petitions have been filed by the claimants in collusion with the owner and driver of the other vehicle, as well as in collusion with the other insurance company. It was further claimed that the offending vehicle was not having the requisite fitness certificate and it was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance policy.
7. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed separate written statement, claiming that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle of the claimants. The averments on merits were also controverted. It was pleaded that police have registered a case against the driver of the other vehicle i.e. Gaja Nand. Therefore, it was pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent.
8. Parties led their evidence.
9. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal held that since it is a head-on-collision, therefore, it shall be taken, as a case of contributory negligence by driver of both the vehicles. Other reason given by the Tribunal; for holding both the drivers to be negligent, was
