Remanded

Dhanpat Singh v. Mohammad Farukh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2011MA/1023/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an appeal against the dismissal of a death compensation claim. The court held that because a one-year-old child cannot be negligent, principles of res ipsa loquitur apply, requiring the vehicle owner and driver to prove the accident was not caused by their rash or negligent driving.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside; matter remitted to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh after affording parties an opportunity to lead evidence.

Dhanpat Singh Vs Mohammad Farukh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

APPELLANT ' ,g /warpat singh s/o Lala singh.
z
easte-Rautiya. age 41 years.
r/o Pandripani, Tehsil Kumri.
Distt. Jashpur. ‘ C.G.
'
vsasug ¥ ,
] ‘_ .4 Mnhammad Farukh s/o Abdul Rasid
;(N%@QNDENESlg;- M , Caste-Musalmn, r/o Kharsiya Naka ,
K Ambikapur. Eistt. mrguja. C. G.
Vmmm)
2. Lal say s/o sater Say. Caste-Karma.
/ r/a Ma. P s.sanna. Distt.
Jashpur. C.G. ‘ ‘
$ I 7
\9?
'
\x”yqgqé‘ ' (DRIVER).
ckyg"
i I ‘ n h ‘
‘
The Griental Insurance Cmpany‘ Ltd. ;
Branch kice adar Rog 7 r ‘

¶2

-. _ ..,--...Wg A“ nnr a Wi:n I—

¶3

¶4

wgg‘z‘lé 53A

¶5

\7(

¶6

HIGH‘COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ MA. No. 1Q23 of 2003 K

Q I

APPELLANT Claimant

Dhanpat Singh Claimant VERSUS _ RESPONDENTS : Mohammad IAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES i ‘‘W (SB: _ -- q» m— Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarw'ai. J4 Present. : ShriShakti RajSinha,Advocate forthe appetlant Shri Neeraj Mehta, Advocate . None for respondent for respondent No. 1. No. 2. ShriiA.K. Athaiey, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ’ r T i (Passed^W on 10.08.2011) ’

¶11

IAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT)

¶12

This is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 22.08.2003, passed by llnd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Jashpur (for short^‘the Tribunal’) in claim case No. 01/03 whereby the claimants’ claim petition has^been dismissed; 2. Brief facts of the case are that : on 22.05.2011 at about 07:30 AM, near Village Pandripani (Farsabahar), Distt. Jashpur, Ku. Alpana, aged about one year was dashed by the driver of Bus bearing registration No; CIL-5088 (New Shamim Bits Service). Pursuant to the injuries sustained in the said accident Ku. Alpana died on spot; The claimant i.e. father of deceased Alpana ciaimed Rs, ’ t2,20,000/e as compensation by filing application before the Tribunal under section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act') for death of his daughter in the said accident.

¶13

“y“

¶14

Respondent No. 1 & 2, by filing their written 5tatement, have admitted the factum of accident and death^{ofKLLAlpanainthe} said accident, but denied negligence on the part 0f driver ef Bus.

¶15

Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company also by filing written statement denied negligence on the part of driver of Bus and have sought exoneration on the ground of breach of poticy conditions.

¶16

The Tribunal, having held accident had not oecurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver^{ofBus,dismissedtheclaim} petition. Shri Sinha, learned counsel appearing^{fortheappellantwould} submit : one year old child^{cannotbesaidtobenegligent,} lt was duty of the Bus driver to^{remaincautiousandtoexplainin} what circumstances^{theaccidenthadoccurred.} Further, it was a case of clear cut negligence^{ofBusdriverandtheTribunal} has erred in not holding as such and in dismissing t.e claim petition.

¶17

On the other hand, Shri Neeraj Mehta and Shri Athaley, learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the award impugned and would submit in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal^has rightly dismissed the claim petition preferred^bythe appellant and award does not call for interference.

¶18

l have heard the counsel appearing^forthe parties^and perused

¶19

the award impugned as well as^{recordsoftheTribunal.}

¶20

lt is not in dispute that Ku. Alpanaj aged about cme year, 0n. 22.05.2011 met with an accident with Bus in question reswting in her death; child of one year cannot be held, guilty 0f negligence. In such cases‘ principie of res ipse [aquifer appiiee and negligence 0f driver can be presumed uniees expieined by the driver and owner of the vehicie. in the instant case, the owner and driver of the vehicie have failed to eetablish the fact that the accident had not occurred due to raeh and negligent driving of the driver of Bus, and therefore; the Tribune! hae certainly fallen in error in not holding the driver cf Brie negligent for said accident and in dismissing the claim petition.

¶21

ln View of above, the award impugned being not Sustainahie in

¶22

law deserves to be and is hereby set aside.

¶23

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the matter is remitted back to the concerned Tribunal for deciding claim petition afresh in the light of observations made hereinabove. Needless to mention, the Tribunal shall afford ember opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and to^file additionai documents, if any.

¶24

Records of Tribunal be sent back forthwith.

¶25

Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on

¶26

Sahu

¶27

10.10.201 1. No order asto costs.

¶28

1’l/////

¶29

SM— N.^K.Agatwa‘ x/ Judge

Dhanpat Singh v. Mohammad Farukh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanpat Singh v. Mohammad Farukh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Usha Singhania and Ors. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Keshar Verma and Others Vs Hemlal Lodhi and Others

Sanjay Singh Vs Jafar Siddique and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Agrawal and Anr. Vs Suresh Sahu and Anr.

Pradyut Pal Vs Smt. Sheela Pal

Kajou Ram Sahu Vs Rajeshwar and Others