Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 702
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD – Appellant
Versus
SH. SHYAM BABU – Respondent
MAC.APP.-43/2021
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate.
The court affirmed that the tractor driver was solely negligent in causing the accident, and the insurance company is liable for compensation despite claims regarding the trolley's insurance status.
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Road accident - Compensation awarded to injured and deceased's sisters - Insurance Company challenged negligence and liability - Tribunal found sole negligence of tractor driver and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,39,467/- and Rs. 5,54,946/- respectively - Insurance Company’s defense of non-insurance of trolley rejected. (Paras 7, 24, 39)
(B) Negligence - Determination of negligence in road accidents - Evidence of eyewitness and FIR sufficient to establish negligence of offending vehicle - Insurance Company cannot evade liability based on non-insurance of trolley. (Paras 22, 28)
(C) Loss of Estate - Distinction between loss to estate and loss of dependency - Compensation calculated based on deceased's income and future prospects - Tribunal's calculation upheld. (Paras 32, 36)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from a road accident on 30.04.2018 involving a tractor and an e-rickshaw, resulting in the death of Sh. Satish and injuries to Sh. Shyam Babu. The Tribunal awarded compensation based on the negligence of the tractor driver. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal correctly determined the negligence of the tractor driver and awarded compensation to the injured and deceased's sisters, which was upheld by the court. (Paras 39, 40)
Issues: The main issues addressed were the negligence of the tractor driver, the liability of the insurance company, and the calculation of compensation for loss of estate. (Paras 8, 29)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented established the tractor driver's negligence, and the insurance company was liable for compensation despite claims regarding the trolley's insurance status. (Paras 22, 28)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and parties involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. fir registration and details (Para 5) |
| 3. tribunal's findings on negligence (Para 7) |
| 4. insurance company's grounds for appeal (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. negligence established by evidence (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. cross-examination of witnesses (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. evidence corroborated by site plan (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 41) |
| 8. court's dismissal of appeals (Para 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The aforesaid two Appeals shall be decided together as they arise from the same accident dated 30.04.2018.
2. MAC.APP.43/2021 has been filed by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 17.03.2020 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,39,467/- along with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded to Respondent/Injured Sh. Shyam Babu.
3. MAC.APP.102/2024 has been filed by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 12.04.2023 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,54,946/- @ 7% per annum has been awarded to the Respondent/Sisters Sh. Premlata and Sh. Hemlata, on account of demise of their brother Sh.Satish, aged 45 years, in the road accident on 30.04.2018.
4. Briefly stated, on 30.04.2018 at about 9:40 AM, Sh. Satish (deceased) along with his nephew Shyam Babu (injured) were going in a battery Rickshaw towards Keshopur Mandi, Delhi. When they reached near Ganda Nala, Khyala, suddenly the offending Tractor bearing No. RJ-22RA-2972(red Colour) along with trolley came at a high speed, in rash and negligent manner and hit the battery rickshaw. Both of them fell on the road and the offending vehicle ran over the stomach of Satish. Both injured were admitted to Guru Govind Singh Govt. Hospital Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi. Sh. Satish expired subsequently, on 15.11.2018 due to septicaemia.
5. FIR No. 83/2018 dated 30.04.2018 under sections 279/337/338 of IPC, 1860 was registered at P.S. Khyala, Delhi against the driver/Nema Meharat.
6. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filled along with the documents.
7. Vide the Impugned Awards, the Learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the Tractor driver and granted compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,39,467/- along with interest @ 9% to Respondent/Injured – Sh. Shyam Babu and Rs. 5,54,946/- @ 7% per annum to the Respondent/Sisters Smt. Premlata and Smt. Hemlata, of the deceased/Satish.
8. The Appellant/Insurance Company, in both the Appeals, has raised the following common grounds to challenge the Impugned Awards: -
i. that the accident occurred due to the fault of the e-rickshaw, which negligently came in front of the offending tractor and no negligence on the part of the Offending tractor-trolley, has been established; and
ii. that when the accident took place, the trolley which was attached to the Tractor was not insured with the Insurance Company and hence, it is not liable to pay the compensation.
9. In the death case i.e. MAC.APP.102/2024, an additional ground is taken that the compensation granted to the Respondents/sisters of the deceased Satish under the Loss of Estate, is not tenable in law as the married sisters were not dependants on the Deceased and cannot be termed as his legal representatives.
10. Learned counsel on behalf of the Respondents have respectively argued that the learned Tribunal in the impugned Awards has considered the entire evidence in detail to rightly conclude the sole negligence of the tractor in causing the accident. Furthermore, the trolley was attached to the tractor, which was duly insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company, and it cannot avoid its liability to pay the compensation merely be claiming that the trolley was not insured.
11. Submissions heard and record perused Negligence of the Tractor-Trolley bearing No.RJ-22RA-2972:
12. The first aspect for consideration is that the Insurance Company has denied that there was any negligence on the part of th
