Back
2020 Supreme(All) 1419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Manju Shukla And Others - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1020 of 2017, 1859 of 2017, 342 of 2015
Decided On : 16-01-2020
For The Appellant : Kuldip Shanker Amist
For The Respondent: Rakesh Bahadur, Sudhakar Pandey
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 2(11) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Chapter X, having Sections 140 to 144, 163A, 166 r/w 165, 28, 38, 65, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138, 166, 173, 176, 213 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 21 - Second Schedule of Act, 1988 - Rule 220 of Rules, 1998 - Liability without fault - No fault liability - Rule of strict liability - Permanent disablement - Power of State Government to make rules - Judgement and award of compensation - Tribunal to determine "just" compensation - Appeal has been filed by defendant-Insurance Company challenging judgement and award - Whether they are financially dependent upon victim or not - Whether there is any permanent disability - Whether claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or despite permanent disability - Whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions – Held, court do not find much difficulty in answering same for reason that a Constitution Bench has directed that reasonable amount on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should have been awarded - Court itself has awarded respectively under the aforesaid heads - court hold that claimant-appellant of FAFO-2 is entitled for compensation in the heads of loss of dependency , future prospects , medical expenses of medical care and medical attendants etc - Loss of profit (loss of employment), termination of pregnancy and mental pain, shock etc and loss of love and affection Total comes to Rs.74,33,802/- and it is accordingly awarded - Appeals partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. First Appeal From Order No. 1020 of 2017 (hereinafterreferred to as “FAFO-1”) has been filed by defendant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafterreferred to as “Act, 1988”)challenging judgement and award dated 29.09.2014 passed by Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia/ Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ballia (hereinafterreferredtoas“Tribunal”)in Motor Accident Claim Petition (hereinafterreferredtoas“MACP”)No. 57 of 2010 awarding compensation of Rs. 72,47,000/-, payable 50 per cent by appellant-Insurance Company, namely, National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafterreferredtoas“Insurer-1”) and remaining 50 per cent by New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Insurer-2”) impleaded as respondent-3 in this appeal. Tribunal has also awarded 8 per cent interest on the amount of compensation which is to be computed from 11.06.2010, i.e., the date on which application for compensation was filed, till the date of payment. Respondent-1, who is claimant-respondent, is now substituted by respondent-1/1, since died during litigation. Respondent-2, Maruti Bhai, is the owner of Truck No. MH 15G 4212 while respondent-4 Ahmad Jalil Shekh is the owner of Qualis bearing registration No. MH 04BN 1138.
2. First Appeal From Order No. 342 of 2015 (hereinafterreferred to as “FAFO-2”) has been filed by New India Assurance Company Limited i.e. Insurer-2 against the same award and grounds taken therein are also similar as taken in FAFO-1.
3. First Appeal From Order No. 1859 of 2013 (hereinafterreferred toas“FAFO-3”)is claimant's appeal which has also come up against same award being dissatisfied with quantum of compensation awarded therein and seeks enhancement of compensation to Rs. 1,12,50,000/-.
4. In FAFO-1, Sri Kuldip Shanker Amist, Advocate has appeared for appellant i.e. Insurer-1, Sri Sudhakar Pandey, Advocate has appeared for claimant-respondent and Sri Rakesh Bahadur, Advocate has appeared for respondent-3, i.e., Insurer-2.
5. In FAFO-2, Sri Rakesh Bahadur, Advocate, has appeared for appellant, i.e., Insurer-2, Sri Sudhakar Pandey, Advocate, has appeared for claimant-respondent and Sri Kuldip Shanker Amist, learned counsel for respondent-2 i.e. Insurer-1
6. In FAFO-3, Sri Sudhakar Pandey, Advocate, has appeared for claimant-appellant; Sri Rakesh Bahadur, Advocate, has appeared for for respondent-3, i.e., Insurer-2; and, Sri Kuldip Shanker Amist, learned counsel for respondent-1, i.e., Insurer-1.
7. Since all these appeals having arisen from common judgement and award, they are similar. Therefore, we briefly describe the facts as under.
8. On 15.09.2009 at 07:00 AM, Smt. Manju Shukla wife of Arvind Kumar Shukla went for darshan of Sai Baba at Shirdi (State of Maharashtra) along with her relatives in a vehicle Toyota Qualis being registration No. MH 04BN 1138. When they reached at village Kokan, P.S. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, a Truck No. MH 15G 4212 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its Driver, collided with Toyota Qualis vehicle causing serious injuries to Smt. Manju Shukla and other passengers. Injured were taken to Tambe Hospital, Sangamner and report was also lodged in P.S. Sangamner. Smt. Manju Shukla sustained injuries on head and went in Coma-II stage. She remained admitted in Tambe Hospital from 15.09.2009 to 08.10.2009 and during treatment, she underwent several testings and medical examinations. As her situation could not be controlled, she was referred to Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital where she was admitted on 08.10.2009 and remained under treatment upto 20.05.2010. During period of treatment, husband of Smt. Manju Shukla and others, who were taking care, resided there by hiring rooms in hotel. She was discharged on 20.05.2010 and brought to her home at Ballia wher
