Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3868
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, JJ.
United India Insurance Co Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Mt. Nirmala Devi Chaturvedi & Others - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 2137 of 2004
Decided On : 19-10-2016
For the Appellant :- Saurabh Srivastava
For the Respondent:- A.C. Srivastava,Ashutosh Mishra,Samir Sharma,V.K.Birla
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper assessment of compensation in motor accident cases and the duty of the court to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence.
Headnote:
Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal - Compensation Assessment - Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (Section 170) - AIR 2016 SCC 948 - Asha and others versus United India Insurance Co.Ltd.another 2004 ACJ 448 - First Appeal From Order 1818 of 2012
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a claim petition for compensation for the death of the sole bread earner of the family due to a road accident. The Insurance Company appealed against the award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal had properly assessed the compensation and dismissed the appeal. It also held that the issue of negligence was a case of composite negligence and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Assessment of compensation, negligence of the driver, and interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of compensation assessment as established in the judgments of AIR 2016 SCC 948, Asha and others versus United India Insurance Co.Ltd.another 2004 ACJ 448, and First Appeal From Order 1818 of 2012. It emphasized the duty of the High Court to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the Tribunal's assessment of just compensation.
Sudhir Agarwal and Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,JJ.
1. Heard Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant and Shri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for respondent.
2. Insurance Company has felt aggrieved by award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal in MACP No.225 of 2002.
3. Parties are referred as claimants and respondents as they appeared before the Tribunal. The claimants filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.50,60,000.00/- for the death of sole bread earner of the family.
4. The claimants filed the claim petition being MACP No.225 of 2002 against the owner and the appellant-Insurance Company claiming compensation of Rs.50,60,000/- for the death of their/her husband/father on 24.2.2002 at 6.00 AM when the deceased while travelling in U.P.S.R.T.C bearing Registration No.UP-60B-3712 met with a head-on-collusion with Truck No.U.P 52-C-5769 resulting therein deceased sustained injuries. The brief facts as narrated in the claim petition are that the deceased died due to rash and negligence of the driver of the bus. The deceased at the time of the accident was the salaried person and that is how the Tribunal fixed the quantum.
5. The brief facts as narrated in the claim petition are that the deceased died due to rash and negligence of the driver of the bus. The deceased at the time of the accident was a salaried person and that is how the Tribunal fixed the quantum.
6. The respondent-Insurance Company filed its detailed written statement and contested the said case, both on law as well as on facts.
7. Opposite party-owner of the Bus despite the summons being served did not put his appearance and as such the case have proceeded ex-parte against her and thus the appellant-Insurance Company have moved an application under section 170 of Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,1988") which was allowed vide order dated 15.9.2003.
8. The claimants had examined witnesses to prove the accident. It is not in dispute before us that the accident took place on 24.2.2002 at about 5.30 AM in the morning when the deceased was travelling in bus which dashed with the vehicle of the respondent. The witness of the deceased Smt. Nirmalla Chaturvedi was examined as P.W-1 and she has been examined on oath as far as quantum is concerned, PW-2 Satya Nand Pandey was the eye witness to the accident and he was travelling in the Bus in which deceased was travelling.
9. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court in UPSRTC versus Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR 2016 SCC 948, Apex Court had held that the Appellate Court should decide on every issue and therefore, we propose to decide the issues which have been raised in this appeal. The main plank of submission is that award is on a higher side. In paragraphs 24 and 27, Court observed as under:
"24. An appeal under Section 173 of the M.V.Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence. [See National Insurance Company Ltd.v.Naresh Kumar & Ors.(2000) 10 SCC 198 and State of Punjab & Anr.v.Navdeep Kuur & Ors.(2004) 13 SCC 680].
27. As observed supra, as a first appellate Court, it was the duty of the High Court to have decided the appeal keeping in view the powers conferred on it by the statute. The impugned judgement also does not, in our opinion, satisfy the requirements of Order XX, Rule 4(2) read with Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code which requires that judgement shall contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon and the reasons. it is for this reason, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court."
10. Learned counsel for appellant has heavily relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of
