Back
Allahbad High Court
K.S.VARMA,S.AHMAD
The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Shrimati Chandrawati - Respondent
Decided On : 05/20/1982
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 110 - ACCIDENT CLAIM - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - CONTROL OVER VEHICLE - RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - REMARRIAGE OF WIDOW.
Fact of the Case:
A fatal accident occurred involving a passenger bus and a motorcyclist. The deceased's heirs filed a claim for compensation against the bus owner, driver, and insurance company. The insurance company contested liability, arguing that it was not liable since the bus was not in the owner's possession at the time of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the owner of the bus remained in control of the vehicle despite an agreement to hire it to another party. The court also found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The court awarded compensation to the deceased's heirs, but reduced the amount awarded to the widow since she had remarried.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable for compensation despite the agreement to hire the bus to another party. 2. Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 3. Whether the widow was entitled to compensation after remarrying.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the insurance company was liable for compensation since the owner of the bus remained in control of the vehicle despite the agreement to hire it to another party. The court reasoned that the registration of the bus was in the owner's name and it was insured in his name, and that the agreement to hire the bus did not constitute a transfer of ownership. 2. The court held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver based on the evidence of an eyewitness and the nature of the accident. 3. The court held that the widow was not entitled to compensation after remarrying, as her dependency on the deceased had come to an end.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the award of compensation to the widow but upholding the award in all other respects.
K. S. VARMA, J. : - The present appeal under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is directed against the award given by B.B. Srivastava, District Judge as the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Barabanki. The facts giving rise to the appeal are that the late Sri Rajendra Swarup Saxena was posted in Barabanki as an overseer at the relevant time in the Public Works Department. On 25-4-1973 when he was proceeding on a motor cycle on Lucknow-Faizabad Road, private passenger bus U.S.D. 468 came from the opposite direction and collided with the motor cycle at Naka Satrikh. The deceased Rajendra Swarup Saxena sustained fatal injuries due to accident and died on the spot. The passenger bus USD 468 was driven by driver Mohammad Sami. At the time of the accident the bus belonged to Liaqat Ali Khan and was driven by Mohammad Sami his driver. The said bus was insured with the oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow. The deceased at the time of his death left behind him his widow Srimati Mithlesh, a son Khagendra Vijai and his mother Srimati Chandrawati, Shrimati Chandravati and Khagendra Vijai have moved the claim petition for compensation and claimed Rs. 85,000/-. The claim was made by the applicants on their behalf and also on behalf of Shrimati Mithlesh widow of the deceased. Shrimati Mithlesh did not join the claim and she was arrayed as an opposite party. The claim put forward on behalf of the heirs of the deceased, referred to above, was contested by Liaqat Ali Khan on the ground that he had given the said vehicle on cow tract to Farid Ahmad and Atiq Ahmad for three years under an agreement dated 28-11-1972. At the time of the accident the said vehicle was driven by Mohammad Sami, the driver of Farid Ahmad and Atiq Ahmad Since Farid Ahmad and Atiq Ahmad had not been Joined as opposite parties, the claim was bad for non-joinder of parties. It was also contended on behalf of Liaqat Ali Khan that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and as such no compensation could be claimed by the representatives of the deceased. It was also maintained that the claim was barred by time and that, at any rate, the claim made was excessive. The claim put forward by the heirs of the deceased was also contested by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company on the ground that the bus in question was being driven on the right side of the road with normal speed and that the deceased was himself responsible for the alleged accident. It was also contended on behalf of the Insurance company that it was not liable for any compensation as on the date of the accident the insured vehicle was not in possession of the owner. Mohammad Sami contested the claim on the ground that he was not driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased.
2. The claims Tribunal framed the following issues: -
"1. Whether the application suffers from the defect of non-joinder of Farid Ahmad and Atiq Ahmad? If so, its effect?
2. Whether the opposite party No.1 executed a contract of the vehicle in favour of Farid Ahmad and Atiq Ahmad, as alleged? If so, its effect?
3. Whether the application is barred by time?
4. Whether the opposite party No. 1 is not liable to pay the compensation, as alleged?
5. Whether the apposite party No. 3 is not liable to pay compensation, as alleged?
6. Whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of opposite party No. 2? If so its effect?
7. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the applicants entitled and against which opposite parties?"
On issues Nos. 2 and 4 the Tribunal held that in spite of the agreement Ext.A-1 the control over the said vehicle remained with Liaqat Ali Khan and that he was liable to pay the compensation in case it was found that the driver of the vehicle was negligent. It was also held that Farid Ahmad and Atiq Ahmad were not necessary parties in the case. On Issue No. 3 the Tribunal held that
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
