Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
B.S. Walia, J.
New India Assurance Company Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Savitri Devi And Others - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 783 of 2018, 784 of 2018, 785 of 2018, 786 of 2018, 787 of 2018, 788 of 2018
Decided On : 03-12-2018
Contributory Negligence - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166] - The court discussed the contributory negligence involved in the case and the quantum of compensation payable. The key legal provisions discussed include the assessment of negligence, evidence on record, and the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Fact of the Case:
The court decided six appeals involving a common question of contributory negligence, except one case where the quantum of compensation was also at issue. The court considered the evidence on record, including the driver's negligence, and the assessment of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was attributable to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Bolero. It rejected the plea of contributory negligence and assessed the compensation payable, considering the income of the deceased and other conventional heads of compensation.
Issues: The issues involved contributory negligence, assessment of negligence, and quantum of compensation payable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the negligence was exclusively that of the driver of the Bolero and rejected the plea of contributory negligence. It also assessed the compensation payable based on the evidence and legal provisions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed five appeals and partly allowed one appeal by modifying the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to adjust the compensation payable.
JUDGMENT
B.S. Walia, J. - This order shall decide six appeals (i.e. FAO Nos.783 to 788 of 2018) since common question of contributory negligence is involved in all six cases except FAO No.784 of 2018 where in addition to the question of contributory negligence, the issue with regard to quantum of compensation payable is also involved. Facts have been taken from FAO No.784 of 2018.
2. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") vide its award dated 19.07.2017 in paragraph No.10 held the driver of the Bolero as negligent, accordingly, awarded compensation as per details given as under:-
| Sr. No. | Claim petition Nos. | Compensation |
| 1. | 43 of 2015 (Manisha v. Umed Singh and others) | Rs.3,59,640/-. Fifty percent of the amount be deposited in her bank account and the other fifty percent be kept in fixed deposit in nationalized bank for a period of 18 months. |
| 2. | 44 of 2015 (Savitri Devi v. Umed Singh and others | Rs.8,66,000/-. It is directed that Rs.1,00,000/- awarded on account of loss of consortium be paid to claimant No.1,Rs.1,00,000/- awarded on account of loss of love and affection be paid to the claimants No.2 to 5 which shall be shared equally by them and out of the remaining amount of compensation 40% be paid to claimant No.1, 20% amount to claimant No.4 being unmarried daughter of the deceased and 10% each be paid to the claimants No.2, 3 and 5. 50% amount of the claimants No.1 and 4 be paid to them in cash and remaining 50% amount of them be deposited in fixed deposit in their names in a nationalized bank for a period of 18 months whereas the share of remaining claimants be paid to them in cash. |
| 3. | 46 of 2015 (Munesh Devi v. Umed Singh and others) | Rs.5,00,000/-. The amount of compensation shall be shared equally by the claimants. Total amount be deposited in their bank account. |
| 4. | 47 of 2015 (Munesh Devi v. Umed Singh and others) | Rs.1,31,076/-. Total amount be deposited in her bank account. |
| 5. | 48 of 2015 (Nirmala Devi v. Umed Singh and others) | Rs.68,220/-. Total amount be deposited in her bank account. |
| 6. | 49 of 2015 (Priya v. Umed Singh and others) | Rs.72,045/-. Total amount be deposited in her bank account. |
3. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal failed to take into account the evidence on record, thereby rendered a finding holding driver of the Bolero as responsible for the accident resulting in the death of Bhag Mal and Dev Kumar whereas PW-6 Vikram who had registered a FIR on the date of accident itself had mentioned the driver of the truck as responsible for the rash and negligent driving resulting in the accident with the Bolero. However, on account of the truck being un-insured a volte-face was done by the respondents/claimants in the claim petition by alleging the driver of the Bolero to be exclusively responsible for the rash and negligent driving resulting in the accident with the truck in question.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) Insurance Company has taken me over the contents of paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the claim petition as well as the cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-6. A perusal of paragraph No.10 of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2 i.e. the driver of the Bolero while in the process of overtaking the truck and further observed that it was the duty of the driver who was overtaking the other vehicle to be cautious while overtaking. In arriving at its aforementioned conclusion, the learned Tribunal held that claimant Manisha (PW-2) who was travelling in the Bolero at the time of accident had in her cross-examination admit
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
