Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi, JJ.
Smt. Ranjana Awasthi and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sukhdeo Singh and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 572 of 2014
Decided On : 31-05-2022
Negligence - Motor Accident Claim - U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011, Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - The court discussed the concept of negligence, contributory negligence, and the statutory regulations for driving motor vehicles. It highlighted the burden of proof for contributory negligence, the duty of drivers at intersections, and the difference between contributory and composite negligence. The court also emphasized the procedural provisions that affect the rights of the parties and the right of action created by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The judgment referenced various legal principles and authoritative pronouncements to evaluate the income and future prospects for determining compensation. It also addressed the issue of interest rate and provided guidelines for disbursement of the awarded amount.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Agra/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Varanasi, regarding a motor accident claim petition. The appeal primarily focused on the issues of negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded. The accident resulted in the death of Nalin Kumar Awasthi and serious injuries to the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal erred in assessing the income and future prospects of the deceased and misinterpreting the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules. It concluded that the compensation awarded required enhancement and recalculated the compensation based on legal principles and authoritative pronouncements. The court also addressed the issue of the interest rate and provided guidelines for disbursement of the awarded amount.
Issues: The issues revolved around the negligence of the parties involved in the accident and the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the tribunal. The court specifically focused on the assessment of income, future prospects, and the application of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules in determining the compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal principles related to negligence, contributory negligence, and the statutory regulations for driving motor vehicles. It relied on authoritative pronouncements and legal provisions to recalibrate the compensation and address the issue of the interest rate and disbursement guidelines.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the judgment and award passed by the tribunal were modified. The respondent-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the recalculated amount with additional interest within a specified period. The court also provided guidelines for the disbursement of the awarded amount and addressed the issue of interest taxation under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
JUDGMENT :
Ajai Tyagi, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 23.11.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Agra/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.35 of 2012 awarding a sum of Rs.38,15,714/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is in dispute. The respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them and, therefore, issues decided by the tribunal other then grant of compensation have attained finality. The only issues to be decided are, (a) negligence and (b) quantum of compensation awarded.
4. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that appellants/claimants along with deceased Nalin Kumar Awasthi (husband of appellant No.1) were going to Kanpur Nagar from Varanasi on 05.11.2010 to visit their residence in a Maruti Wagon R Car No. UP 86 E 6838 alongwith minor son and daughter i.e. appellant nos. 2 and 3. When the appellant and the deceased reached near village Purgaon under Police Station Soraon, District Allahabad at Handi-Kanpur four lane bye pass at 6.30 a.m., a truck (offending vehicle) No. HR 38 M 6704 came from opposite side at a high speed and collided with the car of the appellants which was being driven slowly and carefully by the deceased Nalin Kumar Awasthi, due to such unfortunate event the Wagon R Car, which was going on its left side was badly damaged, all the appellants were seriously injured and the husband of appellant no.1 Nalin Kumar Awasthi died on the spot.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellants that Tribunal has granted lump sum amount towards future loss of income of the deceased, i.e., Rs.5,00,000/-on the reasoning that Rule 220-A of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules stipulates so which findings bad and against the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011. It is further submitted that amount under non-pecuniary heads which is granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and requires enhancement. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that deceased was PCS Officer, namely Govt. employee, and was earning Rs.45,495/-per month. It is also submitted that as the deceased was looking after his wife, son, daughter and father, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased who was 42 years of age should be 1/4th. The multiplier has to be as per age of deceased, i.e., 42 years and multiplier of 15 as awarded by the tribunal is not in dispute. The tribunal has not assessed the future loss of income and it should be 30% of income as per U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011 and decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) or actual future income by increase in Salary as per decision of Apex Court in Sri K.R. Madhusudhan and others Vs. Administrative Officer and another, (2011) 4 SCC 689.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company has submitted that the apportionment of contributory negligence is based on evidence on record. It is further submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement as it is just compensation awarded. It is further submitted that on perusal of evidence it is proved that the accident occurred due to contribution of deceased as held by tribunal and no other reasoning or finding is necessary for conferring the said finding in absence to prove.
Issue of Negligence :-
7. While considering the finding of negligence, the term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a cir
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
