Back
2021 Supreme(UK) 534
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Cholamandalam M.s. General Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Subhash Arora & Ors. - Respondents
Appeal From Order No. 396 of 2011
Decided On : 24-02-2021
Mr. Sarvesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate, Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 166 – Appeal against award – Legality of – In the instant case – Tribunal noted and considered evidence about study and qualification of deceased – Tribunal noted that he was a second year MBA student – Fact that if he would have survived, he would have secured a good job – It is thereafter case laws were referred by Tribunal and concluded that monthly income of deceased would be Rs. 12,000/- – High Court does not see any reason to disturb this finding – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 19, 20 and 21)
eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 166 & vokMZ ds fo#) vihy & oS/kkfudrk & izLrqr ekeys esa] vf/kdj.k us e`rd ds v/;;u ,oa ;ksX;rk ds fo"k; esa mYys[k fd;k Fkk vkSj fopkj fd;k Fkk & vf/kdj.k us ;g mYys[k fd;k fd og f}rh; o"kZ dk ,d MBA fo|kFkhZ Fkk & ;g rF; fd ;fn og thfor jgk gksrk] og ,d vPNh ukSdjh izkIr dj ysrk & ml dkj.k ls] vf/kdj.k }kjk fof/k O;oLFkk,¡ lUnfHkZr dh xbZ Fkh vf/kdj.k us ;g fu"df"kZr fd;k fd e`rd dh ekfld vk; #ñ 12]000@& gksxh & mPp U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ dks O;o/kkfur djus ds fy, dksbZ dkj.k ugha ns[krh gS & vihy [kkfjtA
¼izLrj 19] 20 ,oa 21½
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral). - Instant appeal is preferred against the award dated 28.06.2011 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 156 of 2010 "Subhash Arora and another vs. Pradeep Kumar Garg and others" (for short "the claim petition"), by which the claim petition preferred by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") for compensation arising out of a motor accident has been allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar (for short "the Tribunal") and respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been awarded a total compensation of Rs. 8,02,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Two Thousand only). The appellant has been directed to make payment of the award within a period of one month from the date of the award along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.
2. The claim petition was filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal on the ground that on 07.09.2010 their son Umang Arora was coming to Roorkee from his college in a Vikram/Tempo bearing Registration No. UK-08T.A.-0461 (for short "the first vehicle"). At about 01:30-02:00 PM near Ibrahimpur turn G.T. Road, a truck bearing Registration No. U.K.-08-C.A-1594 (for short "the offending vehicle") came from opposite direction, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit the first vehicle in which Umang Arora was travelling, due to which, the first vehicle was damaged. Umang Arora sustained serious injuries. The driver of the first vehicle died at the spot and other passengers were also injured. Umang Arora was taken to the hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries.
3. It is the case of respondent nos. 1 and 2 that Umang Arora was a very brilliant student and was studying second year MBA Programme in the Institute of Management Studies, Roorkee. Family has many expectations from him.
4. Objections to the claim petition were filed. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:-
"1. Whether the accident dated 07.09.2010 at about 01:30 - 02:00 P.M. at village Ibrahimpur band, G.T. Road, under P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar, occured when the son of the claimants Umang Arora (deceased) was coming to Roorke from his college in Tempo/Vikram bearing registrationNo. UK-08T.A.-0461 and when it reached at Ibrahimpur turn, then a truck bearing registration no. U.K.-08-C.A-1594, which was being driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side by opposite party no. 2 Praveen Kumar hit the tempo, as a result of which, Umang Arora sustained injuries and died?
2. Whether the accident occurred due to the overloading and rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tempo (Vikram) bearing registration no. UK-08T.A.-0461, as stated by opposite party nos. 1 and 3 in their written statement?
3. Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation? If yes, then from whom and to what extent?
4. Whether the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the driver of truck no. UK-08CA-1594 and Tempo/Vikram No. UK-08 TA-0461, as stated by opposite party no. 3 in para no. 20 of its written statement? If yes, then its effect?
5. Whether at the time of accident, the driver of Truck No. UK-08CA-1594 was not having a valid driving licence and the documents relating to the vehicle were not valid, as has been stated by opposite party no. 3 in its written statement?
6. Whether at the time of accident, the driver of Tempo/Vikram No. UK-08TA-0461 was not having a valid driving licence, as has been stated by opposite party no. 5 in its written statement?"
5. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the negligent and rash driving of the offending vehicle, as a result of which, Umang Arora sustained injuries and thereafter died. The Tribunal also concluded that the accident did not occur due to the overloading and rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first vehicle. Issue nos. 1 and 2 were decided accordingly.
6. The Tribunal recorde
