Back
2021 Supreme(UK) 94
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
New India Assurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Jeewanti Tiwari & Ors. - Respondent
Appeal From Order No. 217 of 2008, 348 of 2017
Decided On : 25-03-2021
P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate, Akhil Kumar Shah, Advocate, Rajesh Joshi, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor accident claim cases, considering factors such as contributory negligence, calculation of multiplier, future prospects, loss of consortium, and other relevant expenses.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claim - Compensation - Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Somwati and others, (2020) 9 SCC 644
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a motor accident claim petition filed by the claimants for compensation after the deceased sustained injuries and subsequently died in a road accident. The appellant filed objections to the claim petition, arguing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Both parties presented evidence, and the tribunal allowed the claim petition, awarding compensation to the claimants. The appellant appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the truck driver, and the deceased did not contribute to the accident. The court also addressed the calculation of compensation, applying legal principles from relevant cases to determine the appropriate multiplier and additional compensation for future prospects, loss of consortium, and other expenses. The court dismissed the appeal and awarded compensation to the claimants.
Issues: The issues involved contributory negligence, calculation of compensation, and entitlement to various heads of compensation such as loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, and medical expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the accident was caused by the negligent act of the truck driver and not by any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The court also applied legal principles from Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, and New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Somwati and others to determine the appropriate calculation of compensation for the claimants.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.24,83,957/- along with interest at 6% per annum, to be paid by the appellant within a period of one month.
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Both these appeals arise from the same impugned judgment and order, therefore, they are being taken up together and decided by this common judgment.
2. In this judgment reference to appellant and the respondent shall have to reference to Appeal no.217 of 2008.
3. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.03.2008, passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.45 of 2007, Smt. Jeewanti Tiwari and others vs. Harpal Singh and others, by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, /District Judge, Nainital (for short, "the case"). By the impugned judgment and order, the claim petition filed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 for compensation has been allowed and they have been awarded Rs.15,71,680/- compensation along with interest.
4. Deceased Girish Chandra Tiwari was an Assistant Teacher at the relevant time. On 15.02.2007, at 03:30 p.m., he was returning to his home on his motorcycle bearing registration no. UA-4D 4137 ("the motorcycle"), Near Kattha Factory, Rampur Road, a truck bearing registration no. HR-47/3114 ("the truck") hit the motorcycle, due to which, Girish Chandra Tiwari sustained injuries and subsequently, he died on 21.02.2007. A claim petition was filed, which is basis of the case.
5. The appellant filed objection in the claim petition. Various objections were taken with regard to non-furnishing of the information about the accident; non-joinder of the parties and validity of documents. It is also objected on behalf of the appellant that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. Parties adduced evidence. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the claim petition has been allowed and compensation awarded, as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved by it, the appellant is in appeal.
6. The respondents nos.1 to 4 also preferred appeal for enhancement, which is Appeal No.348 of 2017.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased. The Tribunal did not record any finding on this point; the actual witnesses have not been examined; PW2 Ramesh Singh is the neighbour of the deceased, his evidence is not reliable. It is also argued that in the instant case, the multiplier to be applied should be 14 and not 15.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Sri Krishna Vishweshwar Hedge Vs. General Manager Karnataka State Transport Corporation,2008 15 SCC 767.
9. In the case of Sri Krishna Vishweshwar Hedge (supra), no principle of law has been laid down, but the Hon'ble Court under the facts and circumstances of the case, upheld, the ratio of liability as assessed by the Tribunal at 50:50.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 would submit that the compensation awarded is inadequate and future prospects have not been added into the income, loss of consortium has not been allowed. It is also argued that the multiplier has been rightly applied, because the deceased was 40 years 09 months and 25 days old at the time of incident. On the issue of contributory negligence, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 would submit that the evidence of PW2 Ramesh Singh is enough to establish that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the truck. It is he, who came to the extreme right side and hit the deceased. In this case, after investigation, charge-sheet has also been submitted against the driver of the truck and there is no other evidence to suggest that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased.
11. Has the deceased contributed in the accident. PW1 Smt. Durga Tiwari, who was examined in the case, is wife of the deceased. She did not witness of the incident. It is PW2 Ramesh Singh, who has stated about the accident. According t
