IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
New India Assurance Co Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Narayan And Others - Respondents
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 3456 OF 2004.
Decided On : 20-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal and representation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details of the incident and claimants (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. defenses raised by the owner and insurers (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. issues framed for determination (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. arguments from both sides (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. court's evaluation of evidence (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. insurance policy implications (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. determination of compensation (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. recognition of rights under changing laws (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. final decision on the appeal (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT
J.J. Munir,J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award of Mr. V.K. Tyagi, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Etawah dated 17.08.2004, partly allowing Claim Petition No.70 of 2001.
2. Heard Mr. Anubhav Sinha, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Amaresh Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company and Mr. Ram Ashish Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1/1, the claimant.
3. The original claimants are respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the appeal, to wit, Laxmi Narayan Dubey and Smt. Kusum wife of Laxmi Narayan Dubey. Pending appeal, the claimant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 died and are now represented by their son Jayant Kumar, arrayed as respondent No.1/1. The claimant-respondent Nos.1 and 2, now represented by claimant-respondent No.1/1, shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the claimants'.
4. The claimants are the heirs of the deceased, Rajesh Kumar, who was on board the ill-fated Jeep that met with an accident, more-fully described hereinafter.
5. According to the claimants, on 14.07.2000 at about 2:30 in the midnight hours, Rajesh Kumar @ Pandit was on board Jeep No. UP-75B-9599, proceeding from Kanpur to Etawah. He was carrying with him a consignment of the Hindi daily Amar Ujala to Etawah. The Jeep also had on board Mohd. Iqbal, his wife Kamarul Nisha, their children and 3-5 other persons. Rajesh Kumar was on board Jeep at the time as its conductor. The Jeep was driven by Pramod Kumar. The Jeep driver was driving the vehicle at a high speed and negligently. Near a certain village Mehtauli, the driver dashed the Jeep against a stationary truck, that was parked on the left hand side of the road on the kachcha pavement. The truck bore registration No. UP-65H-7459. The Impact of the accident caused Rajesh Kumar and Kamarul Nisha's death on the spot. The other passengers on board sustained injuries. The Jeep driver deserted post and fled. According to the claimants, the accident happened on account of the exclusive negligence of the Jeep driver. Information of the accident was conveyed by Mohd. Iqbal son of Mohd. Kadir to the Police at P.S. Amarahat, on the basis whereof Crime No.27 of 2000, under Sections 279 , 337, 304-A IPC was registered on 14.07.2000 at 4:30 a.m.
6. The deceased was a healthy man, aged 23 years. He was an able driver and could drive any kind of vehicle. He had worked on the ill-fated Jeep as its driver/ conductor. The deceased would drive the Jeep himself and Pramod Kumar was the driver at the time when the accident happened. When the Jeep had proceeded from Etawah to Kanpur, Rajesh Kumar had operated it and on its way back, Pramod Kumar was on wheel and the deceased was functioning as the conductor. At the time of his demise, the deceased was employed with Raj Kumar son of Naresh Chandra, the owner of the ill-fated Jeep, on a monthly salary of Rs.3000/-, besides Rs.50/- per day towards diet allowance. The deceased's family depended for their sustenance upon his earnings, of which they have been deprived in consequence of the fatal accident. The claimants, who are the father and the mother of the deceased, have been left without support in the evening of their life. Their lives have become burdensome. There is no one to provide for them. The claimants petitioned the Tribunal under Section 163-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 and also under Section 166 . In the for
Lakshmi Narayan Guin v. Niranjan Modak
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Urmila Shukla
Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy
Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation
The court established that the calculation of compensation must consider the deceased's income, appropriate multiplier, and future prospects, independent of any pension received by the dependents.
The insurance policy covered passengers, and the court upheld the Tribunal's compensation calculation using the multiplier method, enhancing the total to Rs.5,38,300.
The quantum of compensation payable to the claimants in a motor accident claim petition is to be determined by considering various factors, including future prospects, personal expenses of the deceas....
The court established that compensation for motor accident victims must be just and equitable, considering loss of dependency and conventional heads, while adhering to established legal principles.
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.