Back
2012 Supreme(All) 2795
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Devi Prasad Singh, Vishnu Chandra Gupta, JJ.
Babu Lal and Another -Appellant
Versus
Vinod Singh and Others -Respondent
FAFO No. 497 of 2010 (with FAFO Nos. 498/2010, 499/20101 and 500/2010)
Decided On : 17-10-2012
S/Sri Jitendra Narain Mishra , U.P.S. Kushwaha, Advocates, for Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of contributory negligence and the liability of the vehicle owners and insurers in a motor accident claim.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Motor Accident Claim Petitions - Sections 166, 163-A, 140 - The court discussed the accident involving a truck, tempo, and a scooter, and the negligence of the drivers. The court found contributory negligence of all three drivers and determined the liability of the truck owner, tempo owner, and their respective insurers. The court awarded compensation for the death of the wife, injuries to the husband, and the deaths of two children.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple Motor Accident Claim Petitions related to a single accident. The accident resulted in deaths and injuries to the occupants of a scooter due to a collision with a truck and a tempo. The tribunal found the scooterist solely responsible for the accident and dismissed all the petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found contributory negligence of all three drivers and determined the liability of the truck owner, tempo owner, and their respective insurers. The court awarded compensation for the death of the wife, injuries to the husband, and the deaths of two children.
Issues: The issues included the occurrence of the accident, contributory negligence, entitlement to compensation, liability of insurance companies, and validity of driving licenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found contributory negligence of all three drivers and determined the liability of the truck owner, tempo owner, and their respective insurers. The court awarded compensation for the death of the wife, injuries to the husband, and the deaths of two children.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals, set aside the tribunal's decision, and awarded compensation to the claimants for the death of the wife, injuries to the husband, and the deaths of two children.
As all the Motor Accidents Claim Petitions are related to one and same accident and the question of law and facts involved in all the four appeals are common, therefore, all these four appeals are being decided by this common judgment.
These appeals under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') relating to four different awards passed on 6.1.2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, court No.1, Lucknow (In short 'Tribunal') dismissing all the Motor Accident Claim Petitions having numbers 305 of 2003, 306 of 2003, 307 of 2003 and 308 of 2003.
Brief facts of the cases for deciding these appeals are that on 3.5.2003 at about 8.00 a.m. appellant Pyare Lal was going on scooter alongwith his wife Smt. Madhu aged about 26 years, niece Km. Babli aged about 3 years and son Prashant Kumar aged about 2 years to L.D.A. Colony and when he reached at over bridge Kanausi, a truck having registration No. U.M.O-9988 coming from the side of Barabirva and driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner hit the tempo having registration no. U.P. 32/Z-6901. Thereafter the truck became dis balance and over turned. The claim petitioner Pyare Lal and other occupants of the scooter came into the clutches of over turned truck. Consequently, all the occupants of the scooter received serious injuries. However, Prashant, Smt. Madhu and Km. Babli succumbed to injuries.
Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 305 of 2003 was filed by Pyare Lal on account of death occurred in the accident of Smt. Madhu. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 306 of 2003 was filed for the injury sustained by Pyare Lal in the accident. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 307 of 2003 was filed on account of death of Km. Babli by her parents Babulal and Smt. Deepa. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 308 of 2003 was filed by Pyare Lal on account of death of his son Prashant Kumar.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of these appeals and of tribunal.
All these claim petitions were filed under sections 166, 163-A read with section 140 of the Act against truck owner Vinod Singh, insurer of truck New India Assurance Company Ltd., owner of the Tempo Samresh Misra and insurer of tempo Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. These claim petitions were contested by all the respondents. They filed their respective written statements in all the cases separately.
On the basis of the pleadings issues were framed by the tribunal. Except issue no. 1 all other issues are common.
Issue No. 1 framed in Claim Petition No.305/2003, 306/2003, 307/2003, 308/2003 are reproduced herein below:-
Petition No. 305/03
Whether the alleged accident occurred on 3.5.2003 at about 08.00 A.M. on Kanausi over bridge within the circle of P.S. Manak Nagar, Distt, Lucknow with truck No. U.M.O. -9988 & Tempo U.P. -32/Z-6901 in which Smt. Madhu W/o Pyare Lal died due to rash and negligent driving of the both the vehicles by its driver?
Petition No.306/2003
Whether the alleged accident occurred on 3.5.2003 at about 08.00 A.M. on Kanausi over bridge within the circle of P.S. Manak Nagar, Distt, Lucknow with truck No. U.M.O. -9988 and Tempo U.P. -32/Z-6901 in which Pyare Lal received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the both the vehicles by its driver?
Petition No.307/203
Whether the alleged accident occurred on 3.5.2003 at about 08.00 A.M. on Kanausi overbridge within the circle of P.S. Manak Nagar, Distt, Lucknow with truck No. U.M.O. -9988 and Tempo U.P. -32/Z-6901 in which Km. BablI D/o Babulal died due to rash and negligent driving of the both the vehicles by its driver?
Petition No. 308 of 2003
Whether the alleged accident occurred on 3.5.2003 at about 08.00 a.m. on Kanausi over bridge within the circle of P.S. Manak Nagar, Distt, Lucknow with truck No. U.M.O. -9988 and Tempo U.P. -32/Z-6901 in which Prashant Kumar died due to rash and negligent driving of the both the vehicles by its driver?
Issues 2, 3,4,5,6,7 are common. Th
