Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. K. DUBEY, A. S. TRIPATHI
M.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
VAIJANTI AND OTHERS - Respondents
Misc. Appeal 139 Of 1992
Decided On : 08/10/1994
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - DRIVER OF TRUCK NOT JOINED AS PARTY - EFFECT - INSURANCE COMPANY'S LIABILITY - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - MULTIPLER METHOD - INTEREST - APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
A passenger died in an accident involving a bus and a truck. The driver of the truck was not joined as a party in the claim petition. The Tribunal awarded compensation against the bus owner, driver, and the insurance company of the truck.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the driver of the truck was a necessary party to the claim petition and that his non-joinder was a serious defect. However, the court also held that the insurance company could not be allowed to raise this objection in appeal because it had consented to the deletion of the driver's name from the array of parties.
Issues: 1. Whether the driver of the truck was a necessary party to the claim petition? 2. Whether the insurance company could be allowed to raise the objection of non-joinder of the driver in appeal? 3. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the driver of the truck was a necessary party to the claim petition because his negligence was a sine qua non for the liability of the owner and the insurance company. The court relied on Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rule 277 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1977, which require the driver to be impleaded as a party in a claim petition. 2. The court held that the insurance company could not be allowed to raise the objection of non-joinder of the driver in appeal because it had consented to the deletion of the driver's name from the array of parties. The court held that the insurance company had waived its right to raise this objection. 3. The court held that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable. The court applied the multiplier method to calculate the compensation and awarded a nominal amount for loss of estate, consortium, and love and affection.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and directed the bus owner and the insurance company to pay the compensation amount in equal shares.
( 1 ) THE Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC) has preferred this appeal under S. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 31-1-1992, passed in Claim Case No. 2 of 1987, by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri, for short, the 'tribunal'.
( 2 ) MATERIAL facts giving rise to this appeal are these. One Suresh Kulkarni, aged about 37 years, working as Welfare Officer in the State Bank of India at Shivpuri Branch, drawing monthly salary at the rate of Rs. 2,415/-, was travelling on 3-7-1983 as a passenger in passenger bus, owned by the MPSRTC, No. MPE 2600. The said bus was being driven by Laxmi Narain, respondent No. 4, during the course of his employment under the MPSRTC. While the bus was coming from Indore and going towards Bhind, near Badarwas, District Shivpuri, a truck No. URC 3981, owned by respondent No. 5, driven by one Chandgiram, the driver, and insured by New India Insurance Co. , the respondent No. 6, was going ahead of the bus. The bus driver asked for the side so as to overtake the said truck. According to the MPSRTC and its driver, the said truck driver gave side and allowed the bus to pass over. It is said that when the bus overtook, the said truck dashed in the rear portion of the bus which resulted in an accident, while according to the owner of the truck, the bus driver dashed in the rear portion of the truck resulting in the accident as a result of which, the passenger Suresh Kulkarni received multiple injuries and died at the spot. The claimants, i. e. , his widow, a minor son and daughter and the father of the deceased filed an application on 28-9-1983- under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, the 'act' in form CAA under R. 277 of the M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1977, for short, the 'rules', for compensation against the owner and driver of the bus and also against the owner, driver and insurer of the truck.
( 3 ) IN spite of repeated summons issued in ordinary manner as well as by registered post, the summons on the driver of the truck, i. e. , Chandgiram, could not be served. The Tribunal also made an effort to serve the summons on the driver on the date of appearance in the criminal case arising out of the same accident, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Kolaras, which is apparent from the order sheet dated 31-1-1987, but the summons sent to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class could also not be served. Ultimately, when the summons was not served, the Tribunal directed to take appropriate steps. Therefore, the claimants' counsel on 28-10-1987, filed an application for deleting the name of the driver of the truck from the array of the parties. All the nonapplicants took time to file reply and to argue on the said application; when the nonapplicants stated that they have no objection, the Tribunal passed a consent order stating that as the parties submitted that case is prolonging since long only for want of service of the driver of the truck; his name be deleted. The Tribunal thereafter framed the issues. Issue No. l (a) related to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus while issue No. I (b) related to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the truck.
( 4 ) THE Tribunal, after recording of evidence, held that the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent which resulted in the accident. While deciding issues Nos. 3, 4 and 9, the Tribunal held the monthly dependency of the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-, and by applying the multiplier of 16 into the multiplicant of Rs. 12,000/-, compensation was calculated at Rs. 1,92,000/ -. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- each to the two children for the loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/ - towards consortium to the widow was also awarded. Out of the total amount of compensation, towards the payment of lump sum and uncertainties of life, a deduction of 10% was made. After deduction, award of Rs. 1,80,900/- with inte
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
