Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
U.N. BHACHAWAT, R.C. SHRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Mahila Phoolvati and Others
Vs.
Girdharilal and Others
Misc Appeal No. 58 of 1972
Decided On: 30.09.1981
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Negligence - Apportionment of liability - Quantum of compensation - Deductions - Insurance policy amount - Personal expenses - Benefit received on account of death of deceased.
Fact of the Case:
Two motor vehicles, a public goods carrier truck and an Ambassador car, collided on the Agra-Bombay road near Noorabad hillock. Two persons in the car died on the spot and two others received injuries. The owner and driver of the truck denied the allegations of rash and negligent driving and attributed the same to the deceased driver of the car. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal consolidated all the three claim cases for the purpose of recording evidence and awarded compensation to the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found that the truck driver was negligent and solely responsible for the accident. The Tribunal also awarded compensation to the claimants after deducting certain amounts towards insurance policy amount, personal expenses, and benefit received on account of the death of the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the truck driver was negligent and solely responsible for the accident? 2. Whether the deductions made by the Tribunal from the compensation amount were justified? 3. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the truck driver was negligent and solely responsible for the accident based on the evidence of Harprashad (P.W. 3) and the rebutting solitary testimony of the truck driver (D.W. 2). The Court found that the truck driver was driving on the wrong side of the road and failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to avoid the accident. 2. The Court held that the deductions made by the Tribunal from the compensation amount were justified. The Court upheld the deduction of 25% towards personal expenses of the deceased, the deduction of the amount received under the insurance policy of the deceased, and the deduction of the value of the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased's wife. However, the Court deleted the deduction of Rs. 10,000/- on account of the probable insurance claim for damage to the car as it was speculative and not supported by any evidence. 3. The Court held that the insurance company was liable to pay only up to the limit of Rs. 20,000/- as per the insurance policy. The Court interpreted Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the liability of the insurance company is limited to the limit provided in the insurance policy unless there is a contract to the contrary.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed all the appeals. The award of the Tribunal was modified by increasing the compensation amount in claim case No. 10/70 from Rs. 31,956/- to Rs. 66,956/- and in claim case No. 11/70 from Rs. 10,010/- to Rs. 25,000/-. The claimants were entitled to recover the compensation amount from the truck owner, the driver, and the insurance company jointly and severally, but the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 20,000/- only. The truck owner, the driver, and the insurance company were also liable to pay the costs of the appeal to the claimants.
U.N. Bhachawat, J.
1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal (s) Nos. 59, 60, 44, 45, 51 and 52 of 1972.
2. All these companion appeals arise out of the award (hereinafter referred to as judgment as the Tribunal has entitled it as judgment) of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated the 15th March, 1972. The Misc. Appeal(s) Nos. 58, 44 and 52 of 1972 arise out of claim case No. 10 of 1970 ; Misc. Appeal (s) Nos. 59, 45 and 51 of 1972 arise out of claim case No. 11 of 1970 and Misc. Appeal No. 60/72 arises out of claim case No. 9 of 1970. All the three claim cases relate to one and the same accident.
3. The accident giving rise to the claim cases took place on 26th of April, 1968 at 6.30 a.m. on the Agra-Bombay road near Noorabad hillock. In this accident, two motor vehicles were involved-- One public goods carrier Truck No. MPG 8385 and another an Ambassador car MPB 8100. Girdharilal (Appellant herein in Misc. Appeal (s) Nos. 44/72 and 45/72 Respondent in the other appeals and non-Applicant before the Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the owner') is the owner of the truck. Bhaiyalal (Appellant No. 2 herein in Misc. Appeal (s) No. 44/72, Respondent No. 2 in the other appeals and non-Applicant No. 2 before the Tribunal; hereinafter referred to as 'the driver') is the driver of the truck. The truck was insured with the Jupiter General Insurance Co. (Appellant in Misc. Appeal (s) Nos. 51 and 52 of 1972, Respondent No. 2 in other appeals and non-Applicant No. 3 in claim cases). Ram Krishan (deceased) was the owner of the Ambassador car at the time of the accident.
4. The following persons were the inmates of the car at the time of the accident:
(i) Ram Krishan, deceased ;
(ii) Mst. Phoolvati widow of Ram Krishan ;
(iii) Ku. Kamlesh, daughter of Ram Krishan;
(iv) Ku. Bimlesh, daughter of Ram Krishan ;
(v) Dileep, son of Ram Krishan;
(vi) Praveen Chand, son of Ram Krishan.
(Nos. (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) who were claimants before the Tribunal in claim case No. 10/70 are Appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 58/72, they are hereinafter collectively referred as claimants set No. 1 and individually as claimants (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) of set No. 1 respectively).
(vii) Heeralal, deceased ;
(viii) Mst. Triveni Devi, widow of Har-prashad ;
(ix) Harprashad ?
(viii) and (ix) were claimants before the Tribunal in claim case No. 9/70, are Appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 60/72; (they are hereinafter referred to as claimants of set No. 3 and individually as claimants (a) and (b) of set No. 3 respectively).
5. The accident occurred on the date, time and place already mentioned above while the two vehicles involved in the accident were proceeding in the opposite directions and dashed against each other. The car was proceeding towards Gwalior.
6. It is beyond the pale of dispute that consequent to this accident Ram Krishan and Heeralal died on the spot and claimants (a) and (b) of set No. 1 received injuries ; there is a dispute as to whether the claimants of set No. 3 received injuries, with which we shall deal hereinafter at an appropriate stage. The allegation of all the three sets of the claimants in their respective claim petitions was that the car was being driven by the deceased Ram Krishan at an ordinary speed on his left hand side of the road, while the truck was being driven on the wrong side of the road by its driver rashly and negligently and as a consequence of his rash and negligent driving despite best efforts of deceased Ram Krishan to avert the clash, the truck dashed against the car. The driver and the owner of the truck denied these allegations inter alia, attributed rash and negligent driving to deceased Ram Krishan. The owner and the driver in their written statement pleaded the situation of the vehicles and the manner as to how the accident happened like this. That between the two vehicles there was a bullock cart, which was going ahead have failed to discharge the same.
7. At the outset, before we proceed further we
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
