Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 847 (MP)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Rambabu Singh

2008-07-10

INDRANI DATTA, S.SAMVATSAR

body2008
Judgment S.Samvatsar, J. ( 1. ) This order shall govern the disposal of above-mentioned appeals, as the same are arising out of common award dated 17.11.2004 passed by the Fourth Additional Member Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhind in Claim Case Nos. 32 and 33 of 2004 respectively. These appeals are preferred by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the finding of negligence as well as quantum after taking permission to contest the case. ( 2. ) Brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.2003 deceased Vinod Singh was driving the motor cycle bearing registration No. MP 30-B 3408, which was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. while other deceased Vijaykant was travelling as a pillion rider on the said motor cycle. When they were travelling on the said motor cycle, a tractor-trolley bearing registration No. MP 30-M 4490, which was insured with present appellant, owned by respondent Rambabu Singh and was driven by respondent Indravir Singh parked on the road. At about 10 in the night the motor cycle dashed against the parked tractor- trolley from the back side, due to which driver of the motor cycle and pillion rider sustained injuries and died. Thereafter, the heirs of the deceased have filed two separate applications for compensations, i.e., Claim Case Nos. 32 and 33 of 2004. The Claims Tribunal found that accident had taken place due to negligence of respondent Indravir Singh. As per the findings of the Claims Tribunal, tractor-trolley was parked on the road but without putting any signal or indication in the night, hence the accident had occurred as the driver of the motor cycle could not see said tractor- trolley. This finding is challenged by the appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 3. ) Mr. S. Gajendragadkar, the learned counsel for appellant insurance company has contended that merely because tractor- trolley was parked on the road without any signal or light is not sufficient to hold that the driver of the tractor-trolley was negligent and, therefore, the entire liability cannot be fixed on the present appellant. In support of his contention, he has relied on judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of National Insurance Co. In support of his contention, he has relied on judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sahiba Khatun, 2000 ACJ 168 (MP), wherein the Division Bench has held that parking a vehicle without any signal or lights by itself is not negligent, it may have violated the traffic rules, but that by itself it cannot be said that the driver of the vehicle who had parked on the road was solely responsible. ( 4. ) From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, we find that in that case the accident had taken place in broad daylight and considering this fact the Division Bench has taken the view that driver of the vehicle, which dashed against stationary vehicle was also equally responsible as he had a chance to avoid the accident. But in the present case, the accident had taken place in dark night and, therefore, facts of the aforesaid case are quite distinguishable. ( 5. ) Next judgment relied on by learned counsel for the appellant is in the case of Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Rajrani Surendrakumar Sharma, 1990 ACJ 60 (Bombay). In that case the Division Bench of Bombay High Court has held liability of the stationary vehicle at 75 per cent, while liability of vehicle dashed against stationary was apportioned 25 per cent. In that case, the accident had taken place in the night. From the facts of that case, it appears that motor cycle which dashed against stationary tanker travelled for about 130 ft after dashing and this itself shows that motor cycle was in high speed and, therefore, Bombay High Court held the driver negligent to the extent of 25 per cent. ( 6. ) Another judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant is in the case of Surjit Pavitar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990 ACJ 156 (PandH), wherein Punjab and Haryana High Court has held the liability of the vehicle parked to the extent of 75 per cent. In that case the findings of the court was that the bus which hit the stationary parked truck in the night was without any light or indication. In that case the findings of the court was that the bus which hit the stationary parked truck in the night was without any light or indication. The headlights of the bus were dim and despite this, it was being driven at fast speed and truck was spotted from a distance of 15 to 20 yards and many passengers shouted a warning to the bus driver, but still bus driver could not avoid the accident. Hence, the court has held liability of bus driver to the extent of 25 per cent. ( 7. ) In the case of Pepsu Road Trans. Corpn. v. Gurdial Singh, 1990 ACJ 448 (PandH), a scooter dashed against stationary bus which was parked without any indication or parking lights during the night hours. The finding of the Tribunal was that the driver of the bus had parked it on the kacha portion of the road with parking lights on and one of the pillion riders of the scooter gave statement to the police that there was no fault of the bus driver. The bus was visible in the light of the headlight of the scooter and there was no evidence to show that the deceased did anything to avoid collision. Considering the statement of pillion rider and the fact that bus was parked on the kacha portion of the road, Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the driver of the scooter was negligent. ( 8. ) Next judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is in the case of Mohd. Hanif v. H.P. Road Trans. Corpn., (2005) 13 SCC 694 , in which victim who was riding bicycle in a rash and negligent manner dashed against stationary bus, got knocked down and suffered skull injuries resulting in his death. In that case the Apex Court has refused to interfere in the concurrent findings arrived at by the Claims Tribunal as well as High Court that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the victim himself. Since the Supreme Court has refused to interfere in the said findings of the Claims Tribunal as well as High Court, therefore, this judgment will not help the appellant. ( 9. Since the Supreme Court has refused to interfere in the said findings of the Claims Tribunal as well as High Court, therefore, this judgment will not help the appellant. ( 9. ) Another judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant is in the case of Meena Devi v. Laharchand, 2005 ACJ 366 (MP), in which the Division Bench of this court has held the driver of the car negligent who hit the parked truck from the back side. From perusal of this judgment, it is not clear that the accident had taken place during the night time or daytime, hence the aforesaid case is not applicable in the present case. ( 10. ) Next judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chand Ratan, 2003 ACJ 361 (MP), in which the accident had taken place at about 4 in the evening. Thus, there was broad daylight and, therefore, the Division Bench of this court has held the car driver negligent, who dashed against stationary truck. ( 11. ) Similar situation is in the case of Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. v. Natarajan, 2003 ACJ 1002 (SC), where two buses collided with each other, which resulted in injury to the claimant. In that case the courts below have concurrently found the negligence of both the vehicles. From the facts of the case, it is not clear that at what time the accident had taken place. ( 12. ) The Division Bench of this court in the case of T. Subrahamaniyam v. Banwari Gurjar, M.A. No. 99 of 2006; decided on 19.3.2008, has held that the driver of the stationary vehicle was solely responsible for the accident. In that case also the vehicle was parked on the road without any parking lights or signal and accident had taken place at about 2.15 in the night. Considering this fact, the Division Bench of this court has held that the driver of the bus was solely responsible for the accident. ( 13. ) Next judgment relied on by learned counsel for the appellant is in the case of Pushpa v. Rai Singh, 2009 ACJ 1346 (MP), in which the Division Bench of this court has held that driver of the tractor- trolley parking it at night by the roadside without switching on parking light or indicator is solely negligent for the accident. ) Next judgment relied on by learned counsel for the appellant is in the case of Pushpa v. Rai Singh, 2009 ACJ 1346 (MP), in which the Division Bench of this court has held that driver of the tractor- trolley parking it at night by the roadside without switching on parking light or indicator is solely negligent for the accident. In that case the accident occurred when scooter was coming from the back side. ( 14. ) In view of these judgments, it can be safely held that the driver of the tractor- trolley, who had parked the vehicle without any signal or light is solely responsible for the accident. ( 15. ) Mr. S. Gajendragadkar, the learned counsel for the appellant has invited attention of this court to the statement of Harish Sharma, AW 2, who has stated that he was also driving a motor cycle along with Anil Sharma. He further states that Vinod Singh was also driving a motor cycle, in which Vijaykant was the pillion rider. He states that his motor cycle was ahead to the motor cycle of these two persons and crossed the stationary tractor-trolley without dashing with the same. This witness has stated that tractor-trolley was standing on the road and a jack was lying near the wheel and some stones were put. He has also stated that at that time there was mist and things were not visible. Thus, merely because that this witness could cross the tractor-trolley without dashing against it, it is not sufficient to hold that the deceased was also liable for the accident. On the other hand, this witness has clearly stated that due to mist things were not visible at the time of accident. Hence, the findings arrived at by the Claims Tribunal cannot be interfered by this court. ( 16. ) So far as the quantum is concerned, the deceased Vinod Singh who died in the accident was a constable. He was getting a salary of Rs. 5,543 per month. After deducting the cycle allowance and washing allowance, he was getting of Rs. 5,297 per month. The Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 16 considering the 38 years of age of the deceased. After deducting one-third towards his self-expenses, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants of deceased Vinod Singh at Rs. 6,85,016. 5,543 per month. After deducting the cycle allowance and washing allowance, he was getting of Rs. 5,297 per month. The Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 16 considering the 38 years of age of the deceased. After deducting one-third towards his self-expenses, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants of deceased Vinod Singh at Rs. 6,85,016. This approach of the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal, hence the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding the compensation. ( 17. ) Deceased Vijaykant was the Arms Clerk in the Collectorate and his salary was Rs. 5,924 as per Exh. P9. He was 28 years of age at the time of accident, hence the Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17. The Claims Tribunal after taking one-third towards his self-expenses and applying multiplier of 17, has awarded compensation at Rs. 7,90,768 to the claimants of the deceased Vijaykant. Thus, the approach of the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal or to call for any interference. ( 18. ) In the result, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Appeals dismissed.