Back
2019 Supreme(UK) 75
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
LOK PAL SINGH, J.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and ors. - Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chandra Tewari & others - Respondents
Appeal From Order No. 139 of 2013 With Cross Appeal No. 15 of 2018
Decided On : 13-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel Insurance Company.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel, Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel, Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel
The main legal point established is the liability of the insurer for compensation due to rash and negligent driving, and the application of the principle of future prospects in re-assessing the compensation amount.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - M.A.C. Case No. 449 of 2011 - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 149, 166, 168, 171] - The court awarded compensation of Rs.10,95,000 to the claimants, holding the insurer of the offending truck liable due to rash and negligent driving. The court applied the principle of future prospects and re-assessed the compensation amount to Rs.15,42,000, citing the case of National Insurance Company vs Pranay Sethi.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a fatal accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a truck, resulting in the death of the motorcycle rider. The claimants sought compensation, and the court found the insurer of the truck liable for the compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the driver of the truck to be rash and negligent, and held the insurer liable for compensation. It also re-assessed the compensation amount considering future prospects, as per the case of National Insurance Company vs Pranay Sethi.
Issues: The issues included determining the cause of the accident, contributory negligence, validity of documents, and the amount of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held the insurer liable based on the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver, and applied the principle of future prospects to re-assess the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal, re-assessing the compensation amount to Rs.15,42,000, to be paid by the insurance company to the claimants along with 6% interest.
(1) A.O. no. 139 of 2013 is directed against the award dated 29.01.2013, passed by the Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khatima, in M.A.C. Case No. 449 of 2011, whereby said Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,95,000/- to claimant nos. 1 and 2 to be paid by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant). It was also directed by the Tribunal that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each in respect of claimant nos. 1 and 2, be kept in a Nationalized bank in some interest earning scheme for a period of five years and on remaining amount of compensation, claimant nos. 1 and 2 shall equally be entitled to receive through account payee cheque with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum, thereon.
(2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers brought on record.
(3) Brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.2011 when the son of applicant Himanshu Tiwari (deceased) along with his friend Bhupendra Singh were coming to his village Damgada on a motorcycle. At about 06:00 P.M., when both of them reached Lohia Head road, Sukha Pul, a Shaktiman truck, bearing registration no. URN 9330, which was being driven rashly and negligently came from opposite direction and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which both of them sustained serious injuries. Himanshu died on the spot. Claimants/respondents alleged that the deceased was aged 22 years and was earning Rs.15,000/-per month by working as part time Accountant in different firms. Claimants mother and sisters of deceased claimed that they were dependent on him.
(4) The petition was contested by owner and driver of trucks (respondent nos. 1 and 2) and the insurance company (respondent no. 3), with whom the truck was insured by filing separate written statements. In the written statements filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal, they denied the allegations in the claim petition. It is also denied by them that on the date of accident, i.e., 21.11.2011 the truck was being plied with all valid documents and the driver of the truck was having valid driving license on the said date. It is also pleaded by the contesting respondents that the truck was being driven with caution and right speed on its side and the driver has committed no mistake in driving the same. It is also alleged that the respondents are not liable to make any payment of compensation and the liability to pay the same, if any, is of the insurance company.
(5) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (present appellant) in its written statement denied the allegations in the claim petition. It is pleaded by insurance company that the burden to prove the age of the deceased is of the claimant as no evidence was given in support thereof. It is also alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased, as such, the liability to pay the compensation is of the insurer of the motorcycle.
(6) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in this case:
1. Whether, the accident took place on 21.11.2011, at about 06:00 P.M., at Sukha Pul, within P.S. Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck registration No. URN 9330, due to which Himanshu Tiwari died on the spot as a result of injuries sustained by him?
2. Whether, the accident took place as a result of contributory negligence? if so, its effect?
3. Whether, at the time of accident the Shaktiman truck was being plied with valid and effective documents? And whether the license of the driver was valid and effective?
4. To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled, and from whom?
(7) On behalf of the claimants, certified copy of the FIR; Postmortem Report of the deceased; inquest report, High School examination certificate; Transfer Certificate,
