Allowed

Asha Soni and Another v. Sri Jeetu Kumar Dua and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2021FAFO/292/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. It held that contributory negligence was not established in a case where a car hit the motorcycle from behind. The court recalculated compensation based on minimum wages, resulting in a significant upward revision of the award.

What did the court decide?

Increased compensation to Rs. 10,60,428/- with interest, superseding the Tribunal's award of Rs. 1,67,000/-.

Asha Soni and Another Vs Sri Jeetu Kumar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 292 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Asha Soni And Another Respondent :- Sri Jeetu Kumar Dua And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.T. Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Shri A.T. Pandey, learned counsel for appellants and Shri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondents.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved of the award dated 6.8.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Aligarh in M.A.C.P. No.04 of 2016 on the ground that learned Tribunal has wrongly inferred aspect of contributory negligence, especially when accident admittedly took place when motorcycle on which deceased was travelling was hit from behind by the offending vehicle. Secondly, income of the deceased has been taken at Rs.3,000/- per month whereas wages even for an unskilled labourer on the date of the accident was to the tune of Rs.6,814.81 or rounded off to Rs.6,815/- per month and accordingly computation should have been made.

¶7

Shri Mehrotra in his turn submits that on page 4 of the award while dealing with issue nos.1, 2 and 3 learned Tribunal has dealt with evidence of the P.W.-2 Rohit who was a pillion rider sitting behind the deceased, Sunny was driving the bike to the affect that there was a speed breaker at the place of occurrence and deceased had not applied brakes while passing over it. Reading this piece of appreciation of evidence, it is submitted that factum of contributory negligence ascertained by learned Tribunal does not call for any interference.

¶8

However, the fact of the matter is that while dealing with issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 it has come on record that driver of the Car

¶9

bearing registration no.UP-81/AT-1233 had hit the motorcycle from behind. Thus evidence of Rohit is to be examined from a different perspective. Had sunny applied brakes then it could have been inferred that due to sudden application of brakes car coming from behind could not adjudge sudden braking in the speed of the motorcycle moving ahead and therefore, if accident takes place then some aspect of contributory negligence could have been attributed to the driving of the motorcycle. It is not the case of the respondent insurance company that due to nonapplication of brake on a speed breaker, motorcycle had skidded and deceased had fallen down. It is admitted that car coming from behind had hit the motorcycle then accident took place, therefore, in my opinion and also applying the ratio of law laid down in case of T O Anthony vs. Karvarnan 2008 (3) SCC 748 where it has been held that aspect of the contributory negligence and extent of contributory negligence of the claimant is to be assessed on the facts of the case and cannot be mechanically apportioned, I am of the view that insurance company has failed to make out a case of contributory negligence.

¶10

Therefore, taking notional income of the deceased as per the minimum wages at Rs.6,815/- per month or Rs.81,780/- per year computation of compensation is to be made. Deceased was admittedly a bachelor aged about 25 years, therefore, 50% of his notional income is to be deducted towards living expenses of the deceased.

¶11

This will leave disposable income for the claimants to the tune of Rs.40,890/-. Forty percent is to be added towards future prospects. Since age of the deceased was 25 years, therefore, multiplier of 18 will be applicable taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs.10,30,428/- over and above which claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- under non-

¶12

pecuniary head taking total compensation to Rs.10,60,428/(rupees ten lakhs sixty thousand four hundred and twenty eight only) against a sum of Rs.1,67,000/- (rupees one lakh sixty seven thousand only) granted by claims Tribunal thus there will be an addition of Rs.8,93,428/- (rupees eight lakhs ninety three thousand four hundred and twenty eight only) which shall also carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claims petition.

¶13

In above terms, the appeal is disposed of.

¶14

Lower court record be sent back forthwith.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.2.2021

¶16

Asha Soni and Another v. Sri Jeetu Kumar Dua and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Soni and Another v. Sri Jeetu Kumar Dua and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

sushila devi Vs united india insurance Co. Ltd. hrough manager and another

Smt. Lala Devi and Others Vs U P.S.R.T.C. and Others

Smt. Bhanu and 3 Others Vs Vishnu and 2 Others

Samrendra Pal Singh and 2 Others Vs Mohd. Shahid and 2 Others

M/S National Insurance Company Limited Vs Suhail Ahmad and 5 Others

Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Kusum and 6 Others