In an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court allowed the claimant's appeal, holding the insurance company primarily liable to pay enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,50,000 after recovering from the owner and driver.
The appeal was allowed and the claimant was awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,50,000.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 1454 of 2009
Sukhi Ram S/o late Mangalu Ram Yadav, Age 50 years, R/o village Kapasda, Post Kura, PS Dharsiwa, Distt. Raipur (CG).
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
| For Appellant | : | Shri Amiykant Tiwari, Advocate. |
|---|---|---|
| For respondent No.3 | : | Shri P. Acharya under instructions of Shri |
| Amrito Das, Advocate. |
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
20.11.2017
2
wrongly exonerated the insurance company as there is no evidence brought before the Tribunal to establish the fact that the offending tractor was being used for other than agriculture purpose for which it was registered and insured. It was further contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is extremely low as the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the income of the deceased so also multiplier has not been correctly applied for quantifying the compensation and thus prayed for amount to be suitably enhanced.
3
the vehicle was being used for non agricultural purpose is concerned, this court could not find any evidence which has been adduced by either of the parties with which it can be conclusively held that at the time of accident the vehicle was being used for a purpose other than agriculture work. Further, what is also evident from the evidence which have come on record is that, it is a case where the respondent No.1, the driver of the tractor, had on his own permitted the deceased to travel on the tractor without the knowledge, instructions or permission of the owner and as such there does not seem to have any evidence with which the act of negligence or the act of breach of the statutory provision or the breach of the policy conditions could be attributed upon the owner.
4
vehicle is established from the evidence before the Tribunal. What should not be ignored is the fact that the deceased was also contributing some amount for maintaining family by earning income as a vegetable vendor.
5
become Rs.4,50,000/- It is ordered accordingly that the claimant shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- instead of Rs.65,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
initiating appropriate recovery proceedings.
inder
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the appeal for enhancement of compensation in a death case.
Whether the insurance company should be made primarily liable under the principle of 'Pay and Recover'.
Whether the conventional heads of compensation and multiplier should be enhanced.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay SethiDistinguished¶29
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sukhi Ram S/o late Mangalu Ram Yadav
Manohar Lal Sahu
Prem Prakash Sahu S/o Sonu Ram Sahu
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
