Back
2020 Supreme(All) 1530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ANIL KUMAR, SAURABH LAVANIA, JJ.
Uday Pratap Singh And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.Thru Zonal Manager & Ors. – Respondent
First Appeal From Order No.293 of 2016, First Appeal From Order No.254 of 2016
Decided on : 10-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Inder Preet Singh Chadha, Mukesh Singh
For the Respondent: Inder Preet Singh Chadha, Narendra Pratap Mishra, Mukesh Singh, Narendra Pratap Mishra
The court reiterated the principles applicable to motor accident claims, including the standard of proof required to establish negligence, the factors to be considered in determining the quantum of compensation, and the importance of eyewitness testimony.
Headnote:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM - NEGLIGENCE OF DRIVER - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a 35-year-old Assistant Professor, was killed in a road accident involving two cars. The deceased was a passenger in one of the cars, which was insured by the appellant insurance company. The other car was driven by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the respondent's car and awarded compensation to the deceased's legal heirs. The insurance company appealed against the award, contending that the driver of its insured car was not negligent and that the amount of compensation awarded was excessive.
Issues: 1. Whether the driver of the appellant's insured car was negligent. 2. Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Tribunal was justified in finding that the driver of the appellant's insured car was negligent. The court relied on the evidence of an eyewitness, who testified that the driver of the appellant's car was driving rashly and negligently. The court also noted that the driver of the appellant's car had failed to produce a valid driving license and insurance certificate. 2. The court held that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was not excessive. The court took into account the deceased's age, income, and the number of dependents. The court also noted that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of his family.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company and upheld the award of compensation granted by the Tribunal.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Mukesh Singh, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and Sri Inder Preet Singh Chadha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In both the above noted appeals, the judgment and award dated 24.12.2015, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal')/Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, District-Faizabad in Claim Petition No. 71 of 2015 [Uday Pratap Singh And Ors. v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others] has been challenged.
3. Appeal i.e. FAFO No. 254 of 2016 [Uday Pratap Singh And Ors. v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others] has been filed for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment and award dated 24.12.2015. The appeal i.e. FAFO No. 293 of 2016 [The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Uday Pratap Singh And Ors.] has been filed with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and award dated 24.12.2015, passed by the Tribunal.
4. The undisputed facts of the case are that on 16.12.2014, the husband of the appellant No. 3 namely late Vijay Kumar Singh was travelling on the Car bearing Registration No. UP 42-R/2049 and at about 9:50 A.M., the said Car met with an accident at National Highway near Chandpur Saidi Patti with the vehicle bearing Registration No. UP 70-CQ/5758. On account of accident, the husband of the appellant No. 3 received serious injuries and was hospitalized in District Hospital, Sultanpur, wherein on account of injuries sustained in the accident in issue, he succumbed. Thereafter, the Claim Petition No. 71 of 2015 was filed before the Tribunal. The claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. father (Uday Pratap Singh), mother (Shanti Singh) and wife (Shweta Singh), who are appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, in FAFO No. 254 of 2016.
5. In the claim petition, for the purposes of compensation, the negligence of vehicle No. UP 70-CQ/5758 was pleaded. With regard to the income, it was pleaded before the Tribunal that the deceased was 35 years old and was Assistant Professor in Kamla Nehru Institute of Physical & Social Sciences, Sultanpur (in short "KNIPSS") and was getting 35,000/-per month as salary. Before the Tribunal, the written statement was filed by the New India Insurance Company (in short "Company") (appellant of FAFO No. 293 of 2016). The written statements were also filed by the owner of the vehicle No. UP 70-CQ/5758 namely Dr. Ravindra Nath Mishra along with Sri Siddharth Mishra, who were impleaded as opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 before the Tribunal in the claim petition. Another written statement was filed by the owner of the vehicle No. UP 42-R/2049 namely Sri Rajendra Krishna Upadhyay along with Sri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, who were impleaded as opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
6. The Company in the written statement took the following main pleas:-
(i) The vehicle was not being driven by a person having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.
(ii) The vehicle was running without a valid permit at the time of accident.
(iii) The vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance.
(iv) The claim petition is mis-conceived, frivolous, vexatious and is not maintainable.
(v) The amount of compensation is highly excessive and exorbitant.
(vi) There is no cause of action against the Company.
7. The owner of the vehicle No. UP 70-CQ/5758, in the written statement filed before the Tribunal has pleaded that the vehicle is insured with the Company and at the time of accident the vehicle was being driven by the driver, who was having valid driving licence and the fitness certificate of the vehicle was also valid. In addition, it has also been pleaded in the written statement that the vehicle was not involved in the accident in issue.
8. In the written statement filed by the owner of the vehicle No. UP 42-R/2049, it has been pleade
