PAWAN KUMAR Vs. M/S HARKISHAN DASS MOHAN LAL
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-62
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
January 29,2014
PAWAN KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
M/S Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
T O ANTHONY VS. KARVARNAN [REFERRED TO]A P S R T C VS. K HEMALATA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT. JYOTSNA GOURI & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-128] [REFERRED TO]VANDNA KUMARI VS. RAMESH & ANR (NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD) [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-216] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNI AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD. VS. BHARMAPPA CHANDRAPPA MAYAPPAGOL @ MAYANNAVAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-10-219] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. PANCHAVARNAM [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI VS. D.HEMAVATHY [LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
RUPAK DAS VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI RAM KRIPAL THAKUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VS. MOST. RUBY DEVI W/O LATE SANJAY KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE [LAWS(PAT)-2016-7-183] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT KAUR VS. PARMINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-7-83] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWINI D. SHETTY AND OTHERS VS. SUBASH SHETTY AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2016-4-176] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.M.T.C. VS. SRI DEANISH M.A. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-2-451] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP KAUR & ORS VS. JAI PARKASH & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2014-12-608] [REFERRED]
LAXMAN THAPA VS. DHARAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-849] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. SARABJIT KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-399] [REFERRED TO]
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE VS. SMT.KHAWJABI AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. PULLIACHARI [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-100] [REFERRED TO]
GULNAZ VS. NAZREEN IDRIS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-6-231] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA BHATIA AND ORS. VS. RAM PARKASH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-253] [REFERRED TO]
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHOBHANA OMANAKUTTAN AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. RIYAJBHAI SIRAJBHAI VORA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-8-383] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA SUKLADAS VS. DEBASISH DEY [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. E. SUSEELAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2023-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
S.B.I. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD VS. SAU. SONALI [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-181] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. KU.RADHIKA D/O. SUBHASH BHOYAR [LAWS(BOM)-2019-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. VS. SMT. SUMANBEN CHIMANBHAI PANCHAL AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-476] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SHAFI SHAIKH SON OF RAMJANBHAI SHEIKH [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-391] [REFERRED]
PUTTATHAYAMMA AND ORS. VS. PURUSHOTHAMACHAND RANWAT AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-2-422] [REFERRED TO]
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR B.M.T.C. AND ORS. VS. DEANISH M.A. AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-2-168] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM JAWARANI VS. WALLIGURU KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2023-4-123] [REFERRED TO]
HEMENDRASINH MANSINH JADAV VS. SANJAYBHAI GOVINDBHAI DABHI [LAWS(GJH)-2018-10-160] [REFERRED TO]
KHENYEI VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-5-26] [REFERRED TO]
SIKHA DEB VS. BINODE DEBNATH [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-4-63] [REFERRED TO]
APSRTC, REP VS. CHEEDE ATCHAYAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-154] [REFERRED TO]
MOOLARAM, VS. NARASA HANUMAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2018-12-78] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. NARAYANI [LAWS(KER)-2022-4-141] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN THAPA VS. DHARAM SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-97] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The appellants were the claimants in the proceedings instituted for award of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). They are aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. Nos. 695, 407 and 408 of 1995 dated 05.07.2006 by which, though their claim for compensation has been upheld, the liability to pay the same has been apportioned between the drivers/owners of the two vehicles involved in the motor accident. The appellants contend that as they were third parties to the claim, the High Court ought to have made the drivers/owners of the vehicles jointly and severally liable to pay compensation in view of their composite negligence instead of apportioning their liability by invoking the principle of contributory negligence.
(2.)The brief facts that will be required to be noticed may now be set out:
Deceased Yogesh (12 years) and Parshotam D. Gupta and injured Salochna were travelling in Jeep No.PB-03-6848 from Sirsa, Haryana to Vaishno Devi on 19.06.1993. The jeep which is owned by the respondent No.1 and driven by the respondent No.2 met with an accident with a truck coming from the opposite direction as a result of which Parshotam D. Gupta and Yogesh died on the spot whereas Salochna received serious injuries. Claim petitions were filed by the parents of Yogesh and the legal heirs of deceased Parshotam Dass including Salochna who is his wife. The injured Salochna also filed a separate claim petition in respect of the injuries sustained by her in the same accident. As the truck involved in the accident had fled from the spot, the driver/owner and insurer of the said truck could not be impleaded in any of the claim petitions filed by the claimants.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal) by its award dated 07.11.1994 held that the truck alone was responsible for the accident and in the absence of the driver/owner or the insurer of the said vehicle, no compensation can be awarded to any of the claimants. Aggrieved, the matter was carried in appeal. The High Court by its order dated 05.07.2006 held that both the truck as well as the jeep, in which the deceased and the injured were travelling, were responsible for the accident. The High Court further held that the liability of the driver/owner of the truck should be estimated at 70% and that of the driver/owner of the jeep at 30%. Accordingly, the High Court held that in respect of the death of Yogesh, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- would be the just and fair compensation payable to the legal heirs. 30% thereof i.e. Rs.60,000/- was held to be payable by the driver/owner/insurer of the jeep. In respect of deceased Parshotam, the High Court held that the amount of compensation payable would be Rs.5,76,000/- and accordingly made the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 (insurer) liable to pay 30% of the said compensation which comes to Rs.1,72,800/-. Insofar as the injuries sustained by Salochna is concerned, the High Court computed the amount of compensation payable at Rs.2,00,000/- and made the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 liable for compensation to the extent of 30% of the said amount i.e. Rs.60,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/claimants have filed the present appeal.
(3.)We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
(2.)The brief facts that will be required to be noticed may now be set out:
Deceased Yogesh (12 years) and Parshotam D. Gupta and injured Salochna were travelling in Jeep No.PB-03-6848 from Sirsa, Haryana to Vaishno Devi on 19.06.1993. The jeep which is owned by the respondent No.1 and driven by the respondent No.2 met with an accident with a truck coming from the opposite direction as a result of which Parshotam D. Gupta and Yogesh died on the spot whereas Salochna received serious injuries. Claim petitions were filed by the parents of Yogesh and the legal heirs of deceased Parshotam Dass including Salochna who is his wife. The injured Salochna also filed a separate claim petition in respect of the injuries sustained by her in the same accident. As the truck involved in the accident had fled from the spot, the driver/owner and insurer of the said truck could not be impleaded in any of the claim petitions filed by the claimants.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal) by its award dated 07.11.1994 held that the truck alone was responsible for the accident and in the absence of the driver/owner or the insurer of the said vehicle, no compensation can be awarded to any of the claimants. Aggrieved, the matter was carried in appeal. The High Court by its order dated 05.07.2006 held that both the truck as well as the jeep, in which the deceased and the injured were travelling, were responsible for the accident. The High Court further held that the liability of the driver/owner of the truck should be estimated at 70% and that of the driver/owner of the jeep at 30%. Accordingly, the High Court held that in respect of the death of Yogesh, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- would be the just and fair compensation payable to the legal heirs. 30% thereof i.e. Rs.60,000/- was held to be payable by the driver/owner/insurer of the jeep. In respect of deceased Parshotam, the High Court held that the amount of compensation payable would be Rs.5,76,000/- and accordingly made the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 (insurer) liable to pay 30% of the said compensation which comes to Rs.1,72,800/-. Insofar as the injuries sustained by Salochna is concerned, the High Court computed the amount of compensation payable at Rs.2,00,000/- and made the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 liable for compensation to the extent of 30% of the said amount i.e. Rs.60,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/claimants have filed the present appeal.
(3.)We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.