SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(All) 665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand, JJ.
Krishna Pyare Gupta And Others - Appellant
Versus
U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. And Another - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 2356 of 2004
Decided On : 14-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Deepak Jaiswal, Akanksha Gaur
For the Respondent: Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha, K.S.Chaudhry, Krishna Shanker Chaudhary,V.A. Ansari

Point of Law : Negligence - Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is not always a question of direct evidence.

Headnote:

Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 - Motor Act, 1988 - Section .110A,110B - Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 194A (3) (ix) - Constitution of India 1950 – Article 226 – Powers of High Court to Issue Writ - Deceased was 31 years of age at time of accident and was Engineer in Railways. His income according to counsel for the claimants was Rs.12,500/-and Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of deceased to be Rs.9,615. Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of deceased. Amount granted under non-pecuniary damages are on the lower side. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th as he was survived by her widow, a minor son and parents. It is also submitted that interest should be 12%.

Finding of the Court : Court finds that accident occurred causing death of Manoj Kumar Gupta who was 31 years of age at the time of accident. Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.9165/-per year which according to this Court, would be at least Rs.11,500/-as Rs.1,000/-can be deducted towards income tax as even in the year 2000, the slab would have above Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, as deceased was below 40 years of age and was a salaried person, 50% of the income will have to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court. The amount under nonpecuniary heads should be at least Rs.70,000 + addition 10% per year which would bring to figure under this head approx Rs.1,00,000/-is granted in view of the decision. As far as multiplier is concerned, it would be 16 in view of the decision of the Apex Court as the deceased was in the age bracket of 31-35. As far as deduction is concerned, it would be 1/4th as the deceased was survived by his widow, a minor son and parents - As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% - Total amount of interest, accrued on principal amount of compensation is to be apportioned on financial year to financial year basis and if interest payable to claimant for any financial year exceeds Rs.50,000/-, insurance company/owner is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided

Result : Appeal is partly allowed

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Chand, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 7.5.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Room No.14, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.642 of 2001 awarding a sum of Rs.8,88,608/-with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The respondent has not challenged the liability imposed on them. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has deducted 30% of the award which is bad as the deceased was not the author or the coauthor of the accident having taken place as he was not plying the vehicle which met with accident rather he was sitting in the same.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 31 years of age at the time of accident and was Engineer in Railways. His income according to the counsel for the claimants was Rs.12,500/-and the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.9,615. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which should be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted that the amount granted under non-pecuniary damages are on the lower side and it should be as per the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). It is further submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th as he was survived by her widow, a minor son and parents. It is also submitted that interest should be 12%.

5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in considering the income of Rs.9165/-as the basic income of the deceased who was Engineer in Railways was Rs.6500/-. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on record in granting multiplier of 17 which should be 16 as the deceased was 31 years of age at the time of his death. It is further submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, let us consider the negligence from the perspective of the law laid down.

7. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which is normally accidental. More particularly, it connotes reckless driving and the injured must always prove that the either side is negligent. If the injury rather death is caused by something owned or controlled by the negligent party then he is directly liable otherwise the principle of “res ipsa loquitur” meaning thereby “the things speak for itself” would apply.

8. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place.

9. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 ( Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And Others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as under :

    “16. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is not always a question of direct evidence. It is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relat

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top