Allowed

Addepalli Madhu Bala and Others v. Sharda Nand

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Mar 2014FAO/1031/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence, holding the truck driver wholly responsible. It enhanced compensation to Rs. 12,01,400 based on the deceased's age of 31 and clarified the insurer's liability with recovery rights against the insured due to post-accident license renewal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 12,01,400 with 7.5% interest; insurer held liable with right of recovery against insured/driver.

Addepalli Madhu Bala and Others Vs Sharda Nand — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO No.1031 of 1999

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1031 of 1999 Date of Decision.14.03.2014

¶5

Smt. Addepalli Madhubala and another

¶6

......Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Sharda Nand and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶13

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

¶17

¶18

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶19

The appeal is at the instance of the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation for death of a male aged 45 years. He was said to be a Civil Engineer and the claimants were widow and son. The contention was that he was only 31 years of age. The claimants had placed before the Tribunal a driving licence of the deceased which showed that he was born on 31.08.1964 and on the date of the accident he was 31 years of age. The contention was that the deceased was going in his car when the insured's truck coming from the opposite direction had come wrong side of the road and made a collision head on with the car which the deceased was driving. The Tribunal took the case to be resultant of contributory negligence which it assessed at 50% Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.24 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

-2-

¶21

FAO No.1031 of 1999

¶22

on the ground that it was a head on collision and there ought to have been, therefore, negligence on the part of the deceased. While so doing, it discarded the statement recorded in the FIR and an eye witness version of a person who claimed that he saw the accident and that it was resultant to a rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck who had come to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the car head on. The driver and the owner had remained ex parte. They offered no evidence about the manner of accident. I hold that the Tribunal was unjustified in drawing an inference of contributory negligence to the deceased by the only fact that the accident was said to be head on collision. Head on collision need not necessarily be that both the drivers of vehicles must take equal responsibility. If there was evidence brought on record that the vehicle coming from the opposite direction had come to the wrong side of the road and caused a collision and when the petition was filed on a plea that the driver of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction was guilty of rash and negligent driving and that he alone had caused the accident, the Tribunal cannot discredit the version of the claimant and hold a case of contributory negligence which even the driver or the owner were not prepared to say at the trial. I set aside the finding of contributory negligence and held the driver of the insured's truck as wholly responsible for the accident.

¶23

While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal was considering the case of the income at 61,650/-, made a deduction of 1/3<sup>rd</sup> and applied a multiplier of 16 to assess a total compensation of 6,57,600/-. It made a partial abatement of 50% and grant a compensation at ` 3,28,800/-. I will reappraise the compensation on Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.24 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

FAO No.1031 of 1999

¶25

-3-

¶26

the scales provided by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) SCC 121 and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 . I will provide for prospect of increase at 50% taking age of the deceased to be 31 years and make a provision for 1 lac for loss of consortium and 1 lac for loss of love and affection. The whole compensation under various heads is tabulated as under:-

¶27

FATAL ACCIDENTS

¶28

Age	31 years
Occupation	Civil Engineer
Claimants	Widow and son
	Heads of claim	Tribunal	High Court
Sl. No.		Amount (Rs)	Amount (Rs.)
1	Income	61,650	61,650
2	Add, % of increase 50%		93,475/-
3	Less, Deduction	1/3^rd	1/3^rd
4	Multiplicand (annualized by multiplying 12)	41,100	61,650
5	Multiplier	16	16
6	Loss of dependence		9,86,400
7	Medical Expenses & Transportation
8	Loss of Consortium		1,00,000
9	Loss of love and affection		1,00,000
10	Loss to estate		5,000
11	Funeral expenses		10,000
	Total	6,57,600	12,01,400

¶29

The total compensation payable will be ` 12,01,400/-. The amount in excess over what has already been provided by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The entitlement will be distributed equally between the claimants. The liability shall be on the insurer.

¶30

In this case, the driving licence has been expired on 12.07.1994 and it had been renewed only after the accident on Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.24 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

-4-

¶32

FAO No.1031 of 1999

¶33

10.07.1995. The Tribunal took the renewal of licence subsequent to the accident as sufficient to enable the owner and driver to secure the full indemnity. The decision is erroneous and it has been directly covered through a decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jarnail Singh (2007) 15 SCC 28, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Suresh Chander Aggarwal (2009) 15 SCC 761 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vidyadhar Mahariwala and others 2008 4 PLR 746. The renewal of driving licence subsequent to the accident cannot secure to the insured a right of indemnity. The liability of the insurance company is, therefore, firmly established only for a third party but it will have a right of recovery against the owner and driver.

¶34

The appeal is allowed but with recovery rights provided to the insurer of the truck against the insured and the driver.

¶35

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶36

March 14, 2014 Pankaj*

¶37

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.24 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Addepalli Madhu Bala and Others v. Sharda Nand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Addepalli Madhu Bala and Others v. Sharda Nand

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

(O&M) Shiv Kumar and Ors. Vs Ranjit Singh and Ors.

Anjali Vs State of Haryana

Vipin Goel Vs State of Haryana

Sat Narain Sharma Vs Chandi Ram and Ors.

Smt. Bachan Kaur and Another Vs Nanak Singh and Others

Ashu Vs National Assurance Com. Ltd.