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

1984 Supreme(All) 475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AMITABH BANERJEE, R. K. SHUKLA
UNITED INDIA FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KANPUR - Appellant
Versus
GULAB CHANDRA - Respondents
F. A. F. O. 461 Of 1977
Decided On : 09/27/1984

Advocates Appeared:
D.Sanyal, G.R.Jain

The insurer could only challenge the award on grounds specified in Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and could not challenge the finding of rash and negligent driving, which was a ground available only to the owner of the vehicle.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Appeal - Maintainability - Insurance Company - Owner of the vehicle - Cross-objection - Enhancement of compensation.

Fact of the Case:

The claimant, Gulab Chandra Gupta, was injured in a motor accident involving a truck owned by Jai Prakash Narain Gupta. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000 to the claimant, to be paid by the insurer, United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Both the insurer and the owner of the vehicle filed appeals, and the claimant filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

Finding of the Court:

1. The appeal filed by the insurer was not maintainable as the insurer could only challenge the award on grounds specified in Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and could not challenge the finding of rash and negligent driving, which was a ground available only to the owner of the vehicle. 2. The appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle was also not maintainable as he was not a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 110-D of the Act, since he was not ordered to pay any part of the compensation awarded. 3. The cross-objection filed by the claimant was maintainable, but the court found no merit in it and upheld the award of Rs. 30,000.

Issues: 1. Whether the appeal filed by the insurer was maintainable. 2. Whether the appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle was maintainable. 3. Whether the cross-objection filed by the claimant was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The insurer could only challenge the award on grounds specified in Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and could not challenge the finding of rash and negligent driving, which was a ground available only to the owner of the vehicle. 2. The owner of the vehicle was not a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 110-D of the Act, since he was not ordered to pay any part of the compensation awarded.

Final Decision: Both the appeals and the cross-objection were dismissed.

A. BANERJI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the Award dated 6th July, 1977 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah awarding a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum to Gulab Chandra Gupta, the victim of the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 30,000/- will be payable by the Insurer defendant No. 2.

( 2 ) THE Insurer, United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Kanpur has filed F. A. F. O. No. 461 of 1977 against the above award by the Claims Tribunal Jai Prakash Narain Gupta, the owner of the motor vehicle, which was involved in the accident, has been joined as appellant No. 2 in the above appeal. There is a cross-objection in the above appeal by Gulab Chandra Gupta, claiming a further sum of Rs. 20,000/ -.

( 3 ) F. A. F. O. No. 466 of 1977 has been filed by Jai Prakash Narain Gupta, the owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident. He has come up against the award of the Claims Tribunal.


( 4 ) SRI G. C. Gupta, the claimant alleged that on 14th April, 1975 while he was standing near the Truck No. UPG 2024 near the Primary School, Ajitmal, Jai Prakash Narain Gupta, owner of the aforesaid truck himself drove the truck backwards rashly and negligently, with the result that the right foot of the claimant was crushed and he lost consciousness. Jai Prakash Narain Gupta took the claimant to the Hallet Hospital, Kanpur and got him admitted there. As a result of the injury the right leg of the claimant had to be amputated about a week after the accident. He had, however, to stay in the hospital for two and half months for treatment and convalescence. He claimed Rs. 5500/- as special damage and Rs. 36,500/- as general damages with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. This claim petition was filed on 6th September, 1975.

( 5 ) THE United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurer), contested the petition and it denied that the accident took place with Truck No. UPG 2024 and the claimant had any right to claim any compensation. It was further pleaded that the Insurer was not served with any notice and consequently the claimant was not entitled to any compensation from the Insurance Company. It was further pleaded that the claim petition was not legally maintainable.

( 6 ) JAI Prakash Narain, owner of the truck pleaded that no accident took place with his truck on the date, time and place alleged and he had been sued on account of enmity. It was further pleaded that no First Information Report had been lodged at the Police Station Ajitmal, which is barely 100 paces from the alleged place of occurrence. A delayed First Information Report had subsequently been lodged with the Superintendent of Police, Etawah. His case further was that in any event there was no rash and negligent act on his part and in any case the petitioner himself would be deemed to be negligent in not hearing the sound of the vehicle starting. He further denied that the claimant was doing any transport business. He was carrying on a shop of edibles and used to supply the same to the transport agencies situated near the shop and his earning was not more than Rs. 5/- a day and consequently the compensation claimed by him was excessive. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was not 37 years old but was only 52 or 55 years. He stated that no amount could be awarded to the victims dependents since the victim was alive. Lastly, it was stated that the claim was bad for nonjoinder of the partners as a party in the proceedings and the claim was, therefore, liable to be rejected.

( 7 ) THE Claims Tribunal held that the claimant being alive, there was no question of payment of any compensation to the dependents of the claimant. On Issue No. 3 the Tribunal held that the accident took place at Ajitmal on 14th April, 1975 at about 8. 00 A. M. and that the accident of the claimant took place by the truck of Jai Prakash Narain




























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