Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2732 (RAJ)

Laxman Singh And Anr v. Jasvindra Singh

2019-10-22

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The unfortunate accident happened on 11.5.1995 on National Highway No.15 near village Khara which resulted due to collision of two trucks i.e. Truck No.PCR-8427, which is truck insured by present Insurance Company and another Truck No. RJF-8347. 2. These three appeals are arising out of the same accident and common judgment & award dated 01.2.2002 3. The claimants are represented by their counsel through Mr. A.K. Singh. Insurance Company is being represented by Mr. Anil Bachhawat. The owner & driver are being represented by Mr.Anil Bhandari. The only dispute of factual matrix between the parties is as regards 50% contributory negligence of claimants truck vis-a-vis Insured truck. Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to para-10 of the judgment, in which, it has been recorded by the learned Tribunal that both trucks after accident went away 150 Feet from the site of accident, which reflects that both the Trucks were travelling at a high speed. Counsel for Insurance Company submitted that since both the Trucks were travelling at high speed and statement of witnesses also indicates the same, therefore, 50% contributory negligence is justifiably arrived at by the learned Tribunal. 4. Counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that on examination of statement of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singhal, it was found that driver of claimant's-truck Bhanwar Singh was addicted to liquor and as per doctor he was behaving abnormally due to non-consuming of liquor. Mr. Singh submits that the doctor's opinion is only about abnormal behaviour and not about actual consumption of liquor by Bhanwar Singh. Counsel for the claimant submits that observation is baseless as the abnormal behaviour may be due to young child and wife expiring day ago in accident. 5. Counsel for the claimants have drawn attention of this Court towards the site-plan (Exh.3) as per which Insured-truck was travelling from North to South and the claimants-truck was travelling from South to North. The site plan indicates a curve on national highway on East side. The insured-truck was travelling from North to South was supposed to stick to side of the curve. Counsel for the appellant submits that logically the truck travelling from South to North was to stick to West side of the road. The site plan indicates a curve on national highway on East side. The insured-truck was travelling from North to South was supposed to stick to side of the curve. Counsel for the appellant submits that logically the truck travelling from South to North was to stick to West side of the road. The path-way of insured-truck shows that while driving straight it would come on wrong side there is a curve on the East which required him to move alongwith the curve. 6. On the limited factual dispute raised by this Court is of the opinion that contributory negligence which has been arrived at by the learned Tribunal to the extent of 50% of the claimantstruck cannot be said to be 50% in light of site-plan, which clearly reflects that the vehicle coming from South to North is on the internal side of curve, thus, maintaining same curve the insuredtruck had to move outside of the curve. This Court also finds that the examination of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singhal does not establish any consumption of liquor while driving, but only is of the opinion that the driver looks to be abnormal and his behaviour may have been on account of non-consumption of alcohol. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties, perusing the site-plan as well as statements of witnesses, this Court concludes the issue of contributory negligence of claimants-truck to be 25% and of insured-truck would be 75%. Thus, after arriving at such conclusion, this Court deems it proper to impose guidelines of Praney Sethi. 8. Accordingly, counsel for the parties were asked to jointly submit their calculation afresh (separately for all the three appeals) as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) AIR SC 5157 and RALSA guidelines, which they have furnished before this Court and the same reads as follows:- CMA No.456/2002 Age of the Deceased 55 Multiplier 11 Future Prospects 10% Deduction on count of Personal Expenses (2 dependents) 1/3 Monthly Income of the Deceased 832 Monthly Income after adding Future Prospects 915.2 Monthly Income after deducting Personal Expenses 610.14 Yearly Income of the deceased 7321.68 Total Income after applying Multiplier 80538.48 Other Conventional Heads 70000 Total 150538.48 Less : 25% contributory negligence 37634.62 Total Award 112903.86 Compensation already awarded 54700 Enhanced Award Rs. 58,203.86 CMA No.458/2002 (as per RALSA guidelines) Age 8 As per RALSA guidelines 350000 Less : 25% contributory negligence 87500 Total Compensation 262500 Compensation awarded by Tribunal 57500 Enhanced Compensation. Rs.2,05,000/- Age 8 CMA No.459/2002 Age of the Deceased 27 Multiplier 17 Future Prospects 40% Deduction on count of Personal Expenses (5 dependents) 1/4 Monthly Income of the Deceased 832 Monthly Income after adding Future Prospects 1164.8 Monthly Income after deducting Personal Expenses 873.6 Yearly Income of the deceased 10483.2 Total Income after applying Multiplier 178214.4 Other Conventional Heads 70000 Total 248214.4 Less : 25% contributory negligence 62053.6 Total Award 186160.8 Compensation already awarded 90600 Enhanced Award Rs. 95560.8 9. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties and in light of precedent law of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra) and RALSA, the enhanced award of Rs.58,203.86/- (CMA No.456/2002) Rs.2,05,000/- (CMA No.458/2002) and Rs.95,560.8/- (CMA No.459/2002) is granted which shall be payable alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual payment is made. The enhanced amount is to be paid within three months from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the subsequent period (i.e. after three months from today) till actual payment is made. 10. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of.