MEERA DEVI Vs. H.R.T.C.
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 10,2014
MEERA DEVI
Appellant
VERSUS
H.R.T.C.
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SATHY VS. VENUGOPALAN [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-446] [REFERRED TO]JESSY AND ORS. VS. A.V. KORATH AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-4-130] [REFERRED TO]
CHAKALI SWAROOPA VS. MOHD GHOUSE [LAWS(APH)-2015-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA JAISWAL VS. PARAM JEET SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2020-3-167] [REFERRED TO]
SAMSUL ALAM VS. MOHAN RAJARAM KAWLEKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2022-9-184] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING VS. PRADEEP GYANCHANDRA DUBEY [LAWS(BOM)-2023-10-30] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD THROU MANAGER VS. ASHA DEVI SONI AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-158] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD VS. BIJANTI BALA ROY [LAWS(GAU)-2019-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
REENA AND ORS. VS. BINU JOHN E. AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-2-40] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. REJI P. RAJU [LAWS(KER)-2015-2-58] [REFERRED TO]
PHILEMON LALTHAZUALA AND ORS. VS. RAMHLUNSANGA AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-11-45] [REFERRED TO]
V G ASHWATHAPPA @ ASHWATHA VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(KAR)-2018-12-315] [REFERRED TO]
TAPATI NAG VS. ABU TAHER SAIKH AND OTHERS [LAWS(TRIP)-2016-2-57] [REFERRED]
APSRTC VS. MALLIK REKHI [LAWS(APH)-2024-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA; NATIONAL INSURANCE COMP LTD VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMP LTD THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER LKO; MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-129] [REFERRED TO]
RAI SINGH VS. DARPAN GIRI [LAWS(MPH)-2023-9-119] [REFERRED TO]
SHEJI VS. MUHAMMEDALI SHEHABUDEEN AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2016-2-137] [REFERRED TO]
REENA DEVI AND ORS. VS. RUNGTA PROJECTS LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. LALKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-155] [REFERRED TO]
ISLAMUNNISA VS. MANNI DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2021-9-121] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. CHINTAN ARUNKUMAR RAVAL AND ANR [LAWS(GJH)-2014-9-266] [REFERRED TO]
AYASHABEN AMANJIBHAI SHERASIYA L.R. OF AMANJIBHAI H. SHERASIYA & ORS. VS. KANABHAI LALABHAI MANATH & ANR. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-11-29] [REFERRED TO]
REEJA IGNESIOUS AND OTHERS VS. MOHAMMADALI AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2017-8-270] [REFERRED TO]
K. PRADEEPAN VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-2-96] [REFERRED TO]
SUMITRA DEVI VS. ASHOK YADAV [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. VS. VEERESHWAR SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
THE BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS. VS. A. ATHINARAYANAN AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-137] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. PARVATI DEVI & ORS VS. VIRENDRA KUMAR & ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. K. LALHLIMPUII [LAWS(GAU)-2021-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
SWAPNA DAS GUPTA & OTHERS VS. RAJIV KAPOOR & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-479] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SOHNA SINGH [LAWS(CAL)-2019-11-47] [REFERRED TO]
PRIT PAL SINGH VS. RADHA DEVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-110] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The appellants by way of this appeal has impugned the judgment dated 27.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in FAO No. 441 of 2003 whereby the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 58 of 2001 was reduced from Rs.3,17,200/- to Rs.1,58,600/- on the ground of contributory negligence.
(2.)On 31.05.2001, the deceased Upamnyu, who was the only son of the appellants herein, was driving scooter having registration No. HP- 28-215 from Mandi side towards Sarkaghat. When he reached at a place known as Nabahi, an accident took place between the said scooter and bus having registration No. HP-28-715, which was being driven by respondent No. 3 herein, namely, Gian Chand, driver in H.R.T.C., Region Sakarghat, Mandi, H.P. Since the deceased got injured in that accident, he was taken to C.HC. Sakarghat and thereafter when he was being taken to PGI Chandigarh, he died on his way.
(3.)The appellants claimed that the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 herein, who was driving the bus in high speed. It was averred by the appellants that the deceased, who was a student, was also doing agriculture and household work earning Rs.4,000/- per month and they being parents of the deceased were dependant upon him. With these averments, the appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the said Act') on 21.07.2001 and sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs. The respondents contested the claim of the appellants on the ground that respondent No. 3 on seeing the deceased coming on scooter from the opposite side at a high speed had stopped the bus and when the scooter collided with the bumper of the bus, the bus was in a stationary condition.
(2.)On 31.05.2001, the deceased Upamnyu, who was the only son of the appellants herein, was driving scooter having registration No. HP- 28-215 from Mandi side towards Sarkaghat. When he reached at a place known as Nabahi, an accident took place between the said scooter and bus having registration No. HP-28-715, which was being driven by respondent No. 3 herein, namely, Gian Chand, driver in H.R.T.C., Region Sakarghat, Mandi, H.P. Since the deceased got injured in that accident, he was taken to C.HC. Sakarghat and thereafter when he was being taken to PGI Chandigarh, he died on his way.
(3.)The appellants claimed that the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 herein, who was driving the bus in high speed. It was averred by the appellants that the deceased, who was a student, was also doing agriculture and household work earning Rs.4,000/- per month and they being parents of the deceased were dependant upon him. With these averments, the appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the said Act') on 21.07.2001 and sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs. The respondents contested the claim of the appellants on the ground that respondent No. 3 on seeing the deceased coming on scooter from the opposite side at a high speed had stopped the bus and when the scooter collided with the bumper of the bus, the bus was in a stationary condition.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.