Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 666 (UTT)

Raghuvir Singh and others v. Shiv Kumar Gupta

2006-11-22

B.C.KANDPAL

body2006
Judgment This appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(sic) against the judgment and award dated 25-04-1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli in Claim Case No. 31 of 1987 Raghuvir Singh & others Vs. Shivkumar Gupta & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31-07-1986, Sri Bhagwat Singh aged 70 years was returning from Darshan of Sri Bhadrinathji in Bus No. HRX 2791 in the morning and this bus slipped inside the downward khud at about 12 Noon near Hanuman Chatti due to the negligence of the driver due to which Bhagwat Singh died at the spot. According to the claimant at the time of the accident Bhagwat Singh was earning Rs. 500/- per month therefore, the claimants/appellants filed a claim petition for Rs. 30,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition and filed their written statement stating therein that the driver - Ved Prakash was driving the bus slowly and carefully as the downward slop was there on the road and it was raining heavily and the road was slippery. There was oil on the road and thus the road was more slippery and that is why the bus skidded towards the khud down the road in spite of the best efforts of the driver. The New India Assurance Company also filed its separate written statement admitting therein that Vijay Kumar - conductor was driving the bus and no road permit was there to carry the bus to Badrinath and Assurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 15,000/- only. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal concerned framed followings issues :- 1. Whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle and his death was caused in the accident? 2. What were the earnings of the deceased? 3. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim any amount of compensation as alleged? 4. Whether the oil was on road and the road was slippery? If so was the driver not negligent as alleged? 5. a. Whether the conductor was driving the vehicle? b. Whether the vehicle was being run on the road without permit of this road? c. If so, is Insurance Company not liable? 6. To what amount of compensation and against which of the defendants are the applicants entitled? 7. If so was the driver not negligent as alleged? 5. a. Whether the conductor was driving the vehicle? b. Whether the vehicle was being run on the road without permit of this road? c. If so, is Insurance Company not liable? 6. To what amount of compensation and against which of the defendants are the applicants entitled? 7. Whether the petition is not maintainable, and is not properly presented? 5. After the assessment of the evidence and after having considered the arguments advanced by the parties the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants/appellants are not entitled to claim any amount by way of compensation, in view of the fact that the deceased was 70 years of age at the time of the accident and was not doing any work on account of his old age. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal of the claim petition, the claimants preferred this present appeal before the Allahabad High Court which has been transferred to this Court after creation of separate State. 7. Heard Sri S.C. Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - New India Assurance Company Ltd. and perused the record. 8. As far as the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, it is quite clear from the evidence on record that the bus in question was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. 9. Smt. Kusum Rai was examined as an eyewitness before the court below and she has deposed in her statement that she was sitting in the bus on the seat behind the driver and some passengers asked the driver to ply the bus on a moderate speed. But the driver of the bus did not pay any heed to the request of the passengers. Neither the bus owner nor the conductor of the bus has been examined in order to controvert the plea of the rash and negligence. It is important to mention here that the driver of the bus also died in this accident. But the driver of the bus did not pay any heed to the request of the passengers. Neither the bus owner nor the conductor of the bus has been examined in order to controvert the plea of the rash and negligence. It is important to mention here that the driver of the bus also died in this accident. Therefore, keeping in view the dictum of "Res ipsa loquitur" it is quite clear that the bus in question was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver at the time of the accident and the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard cannot be disturbed in any manner. 10. However, the amount of compensation is concerned, I disagree with the view adopted by the Tribunal that the claimants are not entitled to claim any amount of compensation on account of the fact that the deceased was aged about 70 years and doing nothing. 11. It is true the deceased was the father of the claimants. It is also admitted that the deceased was 70 years of age at the time of the accident but this factum alone cannot be taken into account to reach to a conclusion that the claimants are not entitled to claim any amount of compensation. It is also an admitted fact that the claimants are legal representatives of deceased and therefore, they are entitled to file the claim petition. 12. The deceased being father of the claimants must be extending a lot of help to other family affairs in the house, which cannot be ignored in any manner. In case, if this preposition of the Tribunal is accepted then it will lead to the only inference that when a person grows old he becomes useless. This is a wrong preposition. In a family when a person becomes older, is of much help to the other affairs of the family. Rest of the family members have to be dependent on an old person in the family for host of the family affairs. It can't be forgotten that old persons are very helpful in developing and cultivating the traditional culture amongst the new generation of the family. Therefore, their contribution towards the family can't be compared with the financial dependency. The old man in a family acts as a 'Torch bearer'. It can't be forgotten that old persons are very helpful in developing and cultivating the traditional culture amongst the new generation of the family. Therefore, their contribution towards the family can't be compared with the financial dependency. The old man in a family acts as a 'Torch bearer'. Therefore, this claim petition could not have been dismissed only on the ground that the claimants/appellants were not entitled to claim any amount of compensation on account of the death of Bhagwat Singh who was aged about 70 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal had to find out as to what the dependents lost by the death of deceased. 13. The record reveals that the offending bus in question was insured with the New India Assurance Company at the time of the accident. There is no denial from the side of the Insurance Company to this fact. It is, therefore, concluded that the offending bus in question was insured with New India Assurance Company at the time of the accident. However, the matter relates to the old Act and under these circumstances, the maximum liability of the Insurance Company was upto Rs. 15,000/-. 14. I, therefore, hold that the New India Assurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to an extent of Rs. 15,000/- on account of the death of Bhagwat Singh along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 25-04-1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli in Claim Case No. 31 of 1987 Raghuvir Singh & others Vs Shivkumar Gupta & others is hereby quashed. The claim petition is decreed with the claims (sic) are entitled for an amount of Rs. 15,000/alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition shall be paid by the Insurer i.e. New India Assurance Company within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.