Back
Allahbad High Court
R.B.MISRA,J.M.L.SINHA
Ramesh Chandra - Appellant
Versus
Randhir Singh - Respondent
Decided On : 12/07/1976
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 110-A, 110-CC, 96(2) - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURER - COMPENSATION - DEDUCTION FOR LUMP SUM PAYMENT - INTEREST - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION - PAIN AND SUFFERING. 1. The deduction for lump sum payment should not be made, if prospect of future rise in income is not taken into account. 2. Interest should be awarded to the claimant under S. 110-CC of the Act to compensate the victim for delayed payment of compensation and to coerce the person/persons who have to pay compensation, so that they may not delay the payment. 3. The defences open to an Insurance Company in a claim under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act are restricted to those specified in Section 96 (2) of the Act. 4. The compensation awarded to a person for mental and physical pain and suffering is separate from the compensation that is awarded to him on account of his loss of earning capacity. 5. Contributory negligence on the part of the claimant can be pleaded as a defence by the owner of the vehicle or the insurer only if there is material on record to warrant a conclusion that the claimant was also negligent contributing to the accident.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, a tempo driver, sustained serious injuries in both his legs as a result of an accident with a truck. The Claims Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs. 78,000, out of which Rs. 50,000 was to be paid by the insurance company and the balance amount of Rs. 28,000 was to be paid by the owner of the truck. The claimant, the owner of the truck, and the insurer filed appeals against the award.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. It also held that the claimant was not guilty of contributory negligence. The court further held that the Claims Tribunal was justified in awarding interest to the claimant under S. 110-CC of the Act. However, the court reduced the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant by Rs. 24,200 on the ground that the Claims Tribunal had not taken into account the prospects of future rise in income of the claimant.
Issues: 1. Whether the deduction for lump sum payment should be made, if prospect of future rise in income is not taken into account? 2. Whether interest should be awarded to the claimant under S. 110-CC of the Act? 3. Whether the defences open to an Insurance Company in a claim under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act are restricted to those specified in Section 96 (2) of the Act? 4. Whether the compensation awarded to a person for mental and physical pain and suffering is separate from the compensation that is awarded to him on account of his loss of earning capacity? 5. Whether contributory negligence on the part of the claimant can be pleaded as a defence by the owner of the vehicle or the insurer only if there is material on record to warrant a conclusion that the claimant was also negligent contributing to the accident?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The deduction for lump sum payment should not be made, if prospect of future rise in income is not taken into account. 2. Interest should be awarded to the claimant under S. 110-CC of the Act to compensate the victim for delayed payment of compensation and to coerce the person/persons who have to pay compensation, so that they may not delay the payment. 3. The defences open to an Insurance Company in a claim under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act are restricted to those specified in Section 96 (2) of the Act. 4. The compensation awarded to a person for mental and physical pain and suffering is separate from the compensation that is awarded to him on account of his loss of earning capacity. 5. Contributory negligence on the part of the claimant can be pleaded as a defence by the owner of the vehicle or the insurer only if there is material on record to warrant a conclusion that the claimant was also negligent contributing to the accident.
Final Decision: F.A.F.O. No. 420 of 1975 and F.A.F.O. No. 444 of 1975 failed in toto and were dismissed with costs. F.A.F.O. No. 458 of 1975 was allowed to the extent that the claimant appellant shall also get interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date on which the claim was filed viz. 11-11-1972 upto the date of the payment thereof.
SINHA, J. :- These three First Appeals from order arise out of the order dated 24th July, 1975, passed by the Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr, awarding a sum of Rs. 78,000 as compensation to the claimant under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:
Randhir Singh (hereinafter to be called the claimant) was working as a driver on Tempo No. UPPP 3480 which belonged to his brother Raj Bir Singh. On 10th of October, 1972, the claimant was driving the tempo from Bulandshahr to Sikandarabad with six passengers in it. At about 3 p.m., when the tempo was near village Lalpurat a distance of three miles from Sikandarabad, Truck No. U.P.P. 1739 was seen coming from the opposite side, driven at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Noticing that the claimant took down his tempo on the kachcha part of the road to his left. The truck however, came down on that side of the road and dashed against the tempo, as a result of which the tempo fell down in a ditch that adjoined the road. The claimant sustained serious injuries in both his legs as a result of this accident. The driver on the truck ran away. The claimant was taken to Sikandarabad Dispensary for medical examination and treatment where it was found that he had sustained as many as 18 external injuries. In view of his condition, the claimant was sent to the District Hospital, Bulandshahr, and from there to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, where a part of his right foot had to be amputated sometime between 27th November, 1972 and lst December, 1972.
3. On 11th December, 1972 the claimant filed the present claim petition. Ramesh Chand (appellant in F. A. F. O. No. 444 of 1975) is the owner of the truck with which the accident took place. In the written statement filed by him it was pleaded that the claimant had no licence for driving the tempo; that he was himself driving the tempo in a negligent manner and the accident took place on that account that the tie rod of the truck suddenly gave way and consequently the accident could not be averted and that the damages claimed were excessive.
4. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. (Appellant in F. A. F. O. No. 420 of 1975), being the insurer of the truck, filed a separate written statement taking up pleas identical to those taken up by Ramesh Chand in his written statement.
5. A number of issues were framed by the claims Tribunal and in answer to those issues it was concluded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. U.P.P. 1739. The Claims Tribunal further held that even though the claimant did not have a licence for driving the tempo, he could efficiently drive the tempo and that neither the owner of the truck nor the insurer could escape the liability on the ground that the claimant did not have a licence. The plea set up by the owner of the truck that the accident took place on account of the tie rod of the truck giving way was rejected. In the result, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 78,000 as compensation further directing that out of the said amount of Rs. 78,000, Rs. 50,000 shall be paid by the insurance company viz. the appellant in F.A.F.O. No. 420 of 1975, and the balance amount of Rs. 28,000 shall be paid by Ramesh Chand viz. the appellant in F. A. F. O. No. 444 of 1975, he being the owner of the truck. Three-fourths of the costs were also awarded to the claimant.
6. The claimant, the owner of the truck, as well as the insurer feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Claims Tribunal, have preferred the present appeals.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant in F.A.F.O. No. 458 of 1975, filed by the claimant, has raised only two points:
(i) That since the Claims Tribunal did not take into account the prospects of future rise in the income of the claimant and further because the Claims Tribunal also did not award interest, the Claims Tribunal should not have made any deductions on the ground that the claimant shall g
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
