Back
2020 Supreme(All) 1016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.
Dharam Veer and Others – Appellants
Versus
Kamal Singh and Others – Respondents
First Appeal from Order No. 1194 of 2012
Decided On : 26-11-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mohan Srivastav.
For the Respondent: Rahul Sahai.
Point of Law: Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court
Headnote:
Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - F.I.R. of the incident - Motor Accident Claims - Necessary as the accident has been admitted, the death occurring out of the injuries is admitted, the appellant being legal representative is not accepted - Negligently and carelessly in gig gag manner suddenly turned to its right side of the road and rammed into the van caused the accident in which wife, one another person namely child sustained multiple injuries –
Finding of the Court:
Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent - Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount with interest at the rate from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited within a period - Amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited - Court feels that a direction requires to be given to all the Tribunals in the State that where there are multiple claims, the learned MACT Tribunal Main should place all the matters before the same Tribunal and the same tribunal should consolidate the matter and decide the same so that the situation as it arose in this matter may not arise - Judgment may be sent down to the concerned Tribunal so that in future he may be more vigilant while deciding matters under this beneficial piece of legislation - Tribunals in the State shall follow the direction of this Court as herein afore mentioned as far as disbursement is concerned, it should look into the condition of the litigant and the pendency of the matter and not blindly apply the judgment –
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.
1. Heard Sri. Mohan Srivastav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Rahul Sahai assisted by Sri. Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company Ltd. The owner and the driver have absented themselves though served.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants has been preferred against the award and order dated 21.12.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr in M.A.C.P. No. 274 of 2009 decided by Sri. Vijay Kumar Agarwal, HJS. I normally do not subscribe to theory of the writing name of presiding officer but the facts in which and the manner in which the tribunal deal with the issues before it has prompted me to write his name.
3. The factual scenario relates to an accident having taken place on 26th of February 2009 at about 9.00 pm when the deceased along with her husband and other person namely Harendra Singh and others were travelling from village where they stayed to village Hissail in Maruti Van No. DL-1CC/2521 driven by her husband namely claimant No. 1. When this maruti van reached G.T. Road near village Ranauli, a tanker coming from the opposite direction which was driven very negligently and carelessly in gig gag manner suddenly turned to its right side of the road and rammed into the maruti van caused the accident in which wife of Harendra Singh, wife of claimant No. 1 and one another person namely child sustained multiple injuries. Wife of Harendra Singh died in the Government Hospital at Khurja on the very same day. The wife of the present claimant No. 1 suffered the pain for almost about three months and was hospitalised. She died out of these injuries only and there is no evidence on record.
4. F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on 26.2.2009 at 11.15 at the police station Arania as Case Crime No. 48 of 2009 was registered against the driver of the tanker. The chargesheet was laid against the driver of the tanker. The deceased was a household lady and along with it was engaged with animal husbandry and was earning Rs. 3000/- per month. The opponent No. 1 and 2 filed joint written statements denying the version of the claimants and brought on record that the vehicle was insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. which was valid from 16.12.2008 to 15.12.2009. Reliance General Insurance Co. denied the version of the claim petition. The Tribunal framed several issues and came to the conclusion that the husband of the deceased namely claimant No. 1 who was driving the vehicle was equally negligent and written the finding of the contributory negligence thereby halving the compensation awarded to the claimants. No other facts are necessary as the accident has been admitted, the death occurring out of the injuries is admitted, the appellant being legal representative is not accepted.
5. In this background, the matter requires to be considered. The appellants herein examined claimant No. 1 and PW-2 so as to bring home their claim. The driver and the owner did not appear before the tribunal in any of the matters. Unfortunately, this matter was subsequently conducted.
6. The appellants are the legal representatives rather heirs of the deceased. The appellants have felt aggrieved by the finding of tribunal on the issue of negligence and compensation as far as decision of the tribunal on other issues is concerned they have attained finality.
7. The accident having taken place and the involvement of car in which claimants were travelling and truck owned by respondent no 2 and insured by respondent no 3 herein is not in dispute. It is necessary to mention a fact here that MACP Case No. 166 of 2010 concerning this very appellant who had claimed the compensation for death of his son the insurance company settled the dispute in Lok Adalat on 23.10.2011. One more aspect requires to be mentioned here that out of the said accident one other claim petition was p
