IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi, JJ.
Smt. Geeta Yadav and Others - Appellant
Versus
Prem Roadways Registered and Another - Respondent
First Appeal from Order No. 4038 of 2012
Decided On : 18-05-2022
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 169, 163A, 166 – Appeal - Compensation - Principle of “res ipsa loquitur” - Driver rashly and negligently - Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals - Bus which was coming side dashed Motorcycle of deceased from behind - It has been averred that the bus was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and even without blowing horn - The accident caused grievous injuries to deceased who has succumbed to the injuries in Military Hospital - Whether her husband was an Income Tax Payee or not - Purpose of keeping compensation is to safeguard the interest of the claimants (Para 34).
Findings of the Court – Court consider the income of the deceased per month - Out of which, the only deduction permissible would be Income Tax i.e. Rs.2,000/- per month - To which, as the deceased was below 40 years, 50% be added towards future loss of income - Cross objection filed by respondent-Insurance Company is dismissed - Award and order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid effect - The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within 12 weeks from today with interest as awarded herein above - The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
Result – Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K.J. Thaker, J.
1. Heard Sri S.D. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and Sri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned Advocate appearing for Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. None has appeared for the respondent-owner of the offending vehicle.
2. By way of this appeal, the appellants-claimants, have challenged the judgment and order dated 9.8.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.14, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No.299 of 2011 awarding compensation of Rs.3,69,500/-with interest at the rate of 6% simple interest till amount is deposited.
3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 18.10.2009 at about 1.00 p.m. a bus bearing No.PB-3 H 9581 which was coming from Barnala side dashed the Motorcycle of the deceased bearing No.UP 71 E 2269 from behind. It has been averred that the bus was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and even without blowing horn. The accident caused grievous injuries to deceased-Kaushal Kishore who has succumbed to the injuries in Military Hospital, Bhatinda Cantt.
4. Consequent upon the death of the deceased, the widow of the deceased along with three others filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of s.88,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 10%. The Tribunal has framed four issues and held driver of the offending vehicle solely negligent for the accident having taken place. As far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/-per month though it was proved that he was in service of Armed Forces, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, applied multiplier of 15 and granted Rs.9500/- under non pecuniary heads.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was Havildar in Indian Army and was earning Rs.27,000/-per month, his salary certificate was placed on record vide Ex.39 Ga which was disbelieved by the Tribunal. It is stated that this finding of the Tribunal is perverse and is required to be upturned as the reasoning given for not believing the said documents show lack of holistic approach expected of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which is required to be granted. It is submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th as the deceased was survived by his widow, a minor son and aged parents. It is further submitted that the deceased being in the age bracket of 31-35, multiplier of 16 should be granted.
7. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the amount under non-pecuniary heads and the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and are required to be enhanced.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1118 of 2009 (Smt. Nasreen Jahan and Others v. Km. Garima Pandey) decided on 2.8.2017 and on the decision of the Apex Court in Sunita and Others vs. Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation and Anr., 2019 (1) T.A.C. 710 so as to contend that the reasoning for non consideration of documentary evidence for income of the deceased is opposed to the reasoning given in the aforesaid decisions.
9. As against this, the Insurance Company has also challenged the judgment and order impugned by way of oral cross objection as far as negligence and compensation awarded are concerned and it is submitted that in view of the decision in F.A.F.O. No.2389 of 2016 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidyawati Devi And 2 Others) decided on 27.7.2016 and under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court is under obligation to decide the same. The ground of cross objection is that the deceased was also the coauthor of the acc
Sunita and Others vs. Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation and Anr.
Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab
Archit Saini and Another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harbans Kaur
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal
Bhagwani Devi v. Krishan Kumar Saini
Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9.
Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 1 SCC 171
Anita Sharma Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd
Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another
Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himanchal Road Transport Corporation and others 2009 (2013) SCC 530
Anil Khoshla v. Mahesh Kumar and others
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others
Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others
Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Point of Law : Purpose of keeping compensation is to safeguard the interest of the claimants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of contributory negligence in a motor vehicle accident and the computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Point of law: The 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 mak....
The judgment established the principles of negligence, contributory negligence, and composite negligence in motor accident cases, and applied relevant legal provisions and precedents to determine com....
words used are ’below 40 years’ and unless it is clarified that the deceased was below 40 years, addition of 40% is not possible.
It is settled law that at intersection where two roads cross each other, it is duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if driver did not slow down at intersection, but continued to proceed at ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles of negligence, contributory negligence, and composite negligence in determining liability and compensation in motor a....
Point of law: Section 110A and Section 110B of Motor Act, 1988 are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively affect the rights of the parties. The right of action created by Fatal Accident....
The court ruled that attributing contributory negligence to the deceased was unjustified and emphasized the principle of just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.