Back
2006 Supreme(UK) 128
2006 (1) U.D., 693
HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL
P. C. Pant, J.
Jagat Singh Rawat
vs
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal And Ors.
Appeal from Order No. 1527 of 2001
Decided on : 29/3/2006
Liability of the vehicle owner for rash and negligent driving leading to an accident, and the liability of the Insurance Company for compensation despite the absence of the insurance policy.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 173 - 1.12.1995 - Village Paubo to Notha - U.P. 07-D/491 - Rs. 1,25,000 - Rash and Negligent Driving - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Liability - Interest - 18% to 6% to 9%
Fact of the Case:
On 1.12.1995, Smt. Anita Devi died in a motor vehicle accident while traveling in a Jeep driven rashly and negligently by the owner. The claimants, including the deceased's husband and minor children, sought compensation of Rs. 8,92,000. The Tribunal found the owner liable and awarded Rs. 1,25,000 compensation, holding the Insurance Company liable as well.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle owner. It also held the Insurance Company liable for the compensation, despite the absence of the insurance policy, as the company had admitted the vehicle was insured with them.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the accident, the deceased's earnings, and the liability for compensation, including the role of the Insurance Company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held the owner liable for the accident due to rash and negligent driving, and found the Insurance Company liable based on its admission of insuring the vehicle, despite the absence of the insurance policy.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, modifying the judgment to hold the Insurance Company liable for the compensation. The interest on the awarded sum was reduced from 18% to 6% if deposited within a month, and increased to 9% per annum if not deposited within a month.
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.8.1997. passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in M.A.C. Case No. 3 of 1996, whereby the claim of the claimant was allowed for an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000 and the appellant, owner of the vehicle, has been directed to pay the same.
2. Brief facts of the case, are that on 1.12.1995 at about 1.30 p.m., Smt. Anita Devi was travelling in Jeep registration No. U.P. 07-D/491 from Village Paubo to Notha. Said vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, Jagat Singh, who was owner as well as driver of the said vehicle, resultantly, the vehicle fell in a gorge and Anita Devi died in the accident. She was aged 27 years a at the time of her death. Claimant No. 1, husband of the deceased and claimant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, minor children of the deceased filed claim petition alleging that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,000 per month for her family. It is also alleged in the claim petition that the vehicle was ensured with respondent No. 2, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. A sum of Rs. 8,92,000 was claimed by the claimants.
3. Respondent No. 1, owner and driver of the vehicle, filed his written statement admitting that the accident did take place but that was so due to some technical fault in the vehicle. He further pleaded, that the vehicle was ensured with the respondent Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., at the time of the accident. Respondent Oriental Insurance Co., filed its separate written statement and contested the claim alleging that the conditions of the policy were violated by the owner of the vehicle. It was further pleaded in the written statement that the owner of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence and registration certificate of the vehicle at the time of the accident. It was also pleaded that passengers were in excess of the limit allowed to take in the vehicle.
4. The Tribunal framed following issues, during the trial:
(1) Whether Smt. Anita Devi died in the accident?
(2) Whether correct age of Smt. Anita Devi is recorded in the claim petition?
(3) Whether Anita Devi was earning Rs. 1,000 per month, as alleged in the claim petition?
(4) Whether the vehicle registration No. UP 07-D/491 was being driven without valid papers, in violation of the terms of the policy, as alleged by respondent No. 2 in its written statement?
(5) To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and, if so, from whom?
5. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal gave the findings that Smt. Anita Devi died in the accident while she was travelling in Jeep registration No. U.P. 07-D/491. It is also admitted fact between the parties, that appellant Jagat Singh was the owner and driver of the vehicle, at the time of the accident. As to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle in question, there is uncontroverted evidence of. P.W. 2, Virender Singh, an eyewitness. As such, it is also established on the record that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the appellant Jagat Singh. Neither owner and driver, Jagat Singh nor the Insurance Co. adduced any evidence before the Tribunal against the aforesad evidence of P.W. 2, Virender Singh, as such, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle in question.
6. As to the fact, that the claimant No. 1, Bhag Singh Rawat was husband of the deceased and Balwant Singh, Sanjay Singh and Jai Singh were minor children of the deceased, pleas are not specifically denied in the written statements of the opposite parties, includingthe appellant. As such, statement of P.W. 1, Bhag Singh Rawat to this effect is rightly believed by the Tribunal and they have been rightly held to be entitled to the amount of compensation for the loss they have su
