//
you're reading...
legal issues

motor accident case – contributory negligence -while driving the motor vehicle on the fateful day, met with an accident not because of the fault of the owner of the vehicle or because of the fault of the other vehicle, but because of the oil spill on the road. Therefore, the negligence can be attributable only on the person who was driving the vehicle and hence, is not entitled to compensation under the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the High Court was justified in invoking the beneficial legislation and in directing the Insurance Company to pay limited amount by way of compensation to the injured person of an accident arising out of the use of a motor cycle on the basis of “no fault liability,” since the accident has arisen 3

Front end destruction to a Saturn automobile.

Image via Wikipedia

 REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO..7823 OF 2011

 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6617 of 2011)

A. Sridhar .............. Appellant

 versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ..............Respondents

 J U D G M E N T

H.L. DATTU, J.

1. Leave granted. 

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed 

 by the High Court of Madras, Chennai in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 

 No. 1779 of 2002, wherein, the Court has allowed the appeal of the 

 Insurance Company and reduced the compensation awarded by the 

 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (for short, "the Tribunal") 

 1

 from `1,60,000/- to `25,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles 

 Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). 

 3. In the Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, the 

 appellant has stated that on 14.01.1998, at about 7.10 PM, while he 

 was riding the motor cycle along with a pillion rider, the vehicle met 

 with an accident due to oil spill on the road and suffered grievous 

 injuries. Since the vehicle is insured with the respondent-Insurance 

 Company, he is entitled for compensation of `6,00,000/- (Rupees Six 

 Lakhs) as general damages/compensation. 

4. The Insurance Company has denied its liability. The Tribunal, 

 while considering the claim of the appellant, has come to the 

 conclusion that the accident did not take place due to rash and 

 negligence driving of the claimant but due to oil spilling on the road. 

 Accordingly, the Tribunal has assessed the compensation payable to 

 the claimant at a sum of `1,60,000/- together with interest at 6% per 

 annum under the Insurance Policy. 

5. In the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the High Court, 

 has taken exception to the order passed by the Tribunal and has come 

 to the conclusion that the Tribunal is not justified in allowing the 

 2

 claim petition moved under Section 166 of the Act and ought to have 

 determined the compensation payable under Section 140 of the Act. 

 Accordingly, the High Court has modified the award and has reduced 

 the compensation payable to `25,000/-. 

6. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order, the claimant is before us 

 in this appeal. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused 

 the record. From the evidence on record, the Tribunal holds that the 

 appellant, while driving the motor vehicle on the fateful day, met with 

 an accident not because of the fault of the owner of the vehicle or 

 because of the fault of the other vehicle, but because of the oil spill on 

 the road. Therefore, the negligence can be attributable only on the 

 person who was driving the vehicle and hence, is not entitled to 

 compensation under the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the High Court 

 was justified in invoking the beneficial legislation and in directing the 

 Insurance Company to pay limited amount by way of compensation to 

 the injured person of an accident arising out of the use of a motor 

 cycle on the basis of "no fault liability," since the accident has arisen 

 3

 out of use of motor vehicle and has resulted in grievous injuries to the 

 claimant. 

8. In view of the above, we do not see any legal infirmity in the 

 Judgment and Order passed by the High Court. The appeal is, 

 accordingly, dismissed. Costs are made easy. 

 .............................J.

 [G.S. SINGHVI]

 .............................J.

 [H.L. DATTU]

New Delhi.

September 13, 2011. 

 4

 REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.7824 OF 2011

 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6618 of 2011)

D. Sampath .............. Appellant

 versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ..............Respondents

 J U D G M E N T

H.L. DATTU, J.

1. Leave granted. 

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order 

 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil 

 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2099 of 2002 dated 12.04.2010. By 

 the impugned judgment, the Court has modified the compensation 

 awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (for 

 short, "the Tribunal") in MCOP No.1971 of 1998 dated 

 12.02.2002. 

3. The facts are not in dispute. Claimant was a pillion rider of 

 a motor cycle which was driven by one A. Sridhar. It met with an 

 accident due to oil spill on the road on 14.01.1998 at about 7.10 

 P.M. The claimant and the driver of the vehicle sustained injuries. 

 Both of them were treated in the hospital for the injuries sustained 

 by them. The vehicle was insured with United India Insurance 

 Company Ltd. - respondent No.1 by the owner of the vehicle - 

 respondent No.2. The claimant filed claim petition before the 

 Tribunal inter-alia requesting to award compensation at a sum of 

 `12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs only) under various heads. 

 Claimant had examined himself as PW-2 and other witnesses, 

 including Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan - PW-3, who had assessed the 

 disability sustained by the claimant at 75%. The Tribunal, after 

 considering the various factors, including the medical evidence, 

 had quantified the compensation payable by the Insurance 

 Company at a sum of `3,50,000/-. Being aggrieved by the 

 compensation so awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant had 

 preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2099 of 2002, before the 

 High Court of judicature at Madras. The Court, after re-

 considering the claim of the claimant and re-appreciating the 

 evidence on record, has enhanced the compensation to `4,90,000/- 

 from `3,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is this judgment and 

 order which is called in question in this appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis and 

 perused the records.

5. We do not intend to disturb the judgment and order passed 

 by the High Court except to a limited extent. The High Court, 

 while assessing the compensation payable to the claimant, has 

 arrived at the loss of earning capacity in a sum of ` 8,16,000/- and, 

 thereafter, though the Doctor has assessed 75% disability, has 

 taken into account 50% disability while calculating the loss of 

 income without any rhyme or reason. In our view, this is a mistake 

 committed by the High Court. It is no doubt true that, while 

 making assessment, there is an element of guess work, but that 

 guess work again must have reasonable nexus to the available 

 material/evidence and the quantification made. In the instant case, 

 the claimant had not only examined himself to sustain the claim 

 made in the petition but also Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan, PW-3, who 

 has stated that the claimant has suffered 75% disability, by 

referring to the Disability Certificate issued by a competent Doctor 

who had treated the claimant. Though the Doctor is cross-

examined at length by learned Advocate for the Insurance 

Company, nothing adverse to the interest of the claimant is 

elicited. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly accepted the evidence 

of the Doctor-PW-3. However, the High Court has taken 50% 

disability into account while calculating the loss of income. This, 

in our view, is the mistake committed by the High Court. We 

hastened to add that we are not saying that under all circumstances, 

the Court has to blindly accept the Disability Certificate produced 

by the claimant. The Court has the discretion to accept either 

totally or partially or reject the Certificate so produced and marked 

in the trial but, that, can be done only by assigning cogent and 

acceptable reasons. In this view of the matter, we take the 

disability suffered by the claimant at 75% and calculate the loss of 

income of the claimant keeping in view the loss of earning 

capacity of the claimant assessed by the High Court. Accordingly, 

we arrive at the loss of earning capacity of the claimant at 

`6,12,000/-. 

6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. We direct the 

 Insurance Company to deposit a sum of `6,12,000/- after deducting 

 the amount already paid or deposited with accrued interest of 6% 

 from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment before 

 the Tribunal within two months from today. On such deposit, the 

 Tribunal is directed to release the amount to the claimant. No 

 order as to costs. 

 .............................J.

 [G.S. SINGHVI]

 .............................J.

 [H.L. DATTU]

New Delhi,September 13, 2011. 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,436 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: