- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Prem Chand v. Jasoda And Others
Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion (G.M. Lodha, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
Three Misc. Claim Petitions (Nos. 1, 6 and 7 of 1977) decided by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur by a common award dated 16 July 1981 are the subject of five appeals before this Court. The appeals include S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 129/1981 and 99/1982 (claimants Ramshree and others), S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 128/1981 and 22/1982 (claimants Jasoda and others), and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 130/1981 (claimants Govind Saran and others; owner of the motorcycle). The appellant Prem Chand (owner of a truck USO 4427) filed three separate appeals against the Tribunal's common award; the claimants filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation in the two death cases.
Material facts: On 15 December 1976, two men (Mahendra Singh and Purshottam Lal) were riding motorcycle No. RJD 7623 towards Paramdara village. When they turned towards Deeg onto the main Kama route, a fully loaded truck USO 4427 (owned by Premchand and driven by Mohansingh; insured with New India Assurance Company) struck the motorcycle from behind. Mahendra Singh died on the spot; Purshottam Lal died shortly after in hospital. The motorcycle was owned by Hindustan Krishi Yantralaya, Deeg.
The Tribunal awarded: Rs. 1,12,500 to Ramshree and several dependants of Mahendra Singh; Rs. 47,520 to Jasoda w/o Purshottam Lal and others; and Rs. 3,000 to Govind Saran for damage to the motorcycle. The Tribunal also held that the total liability of the insurance company could not exceed Rs. 50,000 as a whole and apportioned the amount accordingly.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the truck (and its driver/owner) was negligent or rash in causing the accident (i.e., whether the Tribunal's finding that the truck struck the motorcycle from behind and thereby caused the deaths is sustainable).
- Whether the insurance company's total liability in these claims is limited to Rs. 50,000 as a whole for the accident(s), or whether the liability should be applied differently (in light of appellate and apex court authority).
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in making a 25% deduction (in computing lump-sum compensation) on account of interest/benefit received by claimants in advance — i.e., should traditional deductions from awards continue to be applied?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Owner of the Truck — Premchand / Counsel: Mr. G.C. Mathur)
- Primary contention: There was no negligence or rashness on the part of the truck driver; all three awards should be set aside.
- Alternative contention: The motorcyclist was contributorily negligent.
- Factual narrative offered: The truck was on the main road when the motorcycle came from a side road; thus, the motorcyclist should have slowed down and allowed the truck to pass. Mr. Mathur argued the motorcycle dashed against the truck after more than half of the truck had already passed on one side; therefore the Tribunal's finding that the truck struck the motorcycle from behind is erroneous.
- Relied extensively on oral and documentary evidence (as advanced at length before the Court).
Respondents / Claimants (Counsel: Mr. S.C. Srivastava)
- Counter-argument: The accident did not occur when the motorcycle was entering the main road from the side road; rather the motorcycle had already taken the turn onto the main road and thereafter the truck came from behind and struck it.
- Also relied upon oral and documentary evidence to support the Tribunal's finding that the truck struck from behind.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Motor Owner's Ins. Co. Ltd. v. J.K. Modi, 1981 ACJ 507 (SC) | The liability of the insurance company in cases of this nature is not limited to Rs. 50,000 as a whole; the expression "one accident" is to be understood as "accident to one" (authoritative guidance from the apex court). | The Court applied this apex-court authority to reject the Tribunal's view that the insurer's liability was capped at Rs. 50,000 in aggregate across claimants; instead the Court increased the insurer's liability to Rs. 50,000 in each relevant claim petition depending on the award in each case. |
| Inderlal v. Narendra Kumar, 1985 ACJ 303 (Raj) | Advocated a modern approach that compensation under social welfare legislation should not be minimised by making traditional deductions (e.g., a 25% deduction) — i.e., avoid reducing awards by such deductions in light of changed social circumstances. | The Court relied on and followed this view to reject the Tribunal's 25% deduction practice and modified the awards to allow the compensation without such deductions. |
| Satya Wati Pathak v. Hari Ram, 1983 ACJ 424 (Delhi) | Represented High Court authority (Delhi) supporting the approach of not making traditional deductions when awarding compensation. | The Court stated it followed the Delhi High Court's view in this case as supportive authority for refusing to make the 25% deduction and for taking a dynamic/pragmatic approach to compensation. |
| Srisailam Devastanam v. Bhavani Pramilamma, 1983 ACJ 580 (AP) | Represented High Court authority (Andhra Pradesh) endorsing a similar approach against routine deductions in compensation awards. | The Court stated it followed the Andhra Pradesh High Court's view in this case to support rejection of the Tribunal's deduction practice and to modify the awards accordingly. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court considered the rival contentions and examined both the oral testimony and documentary evidence submitted at trial. The analysis proceeded in two main parts: (1) determination of liability for the collision, and (2) determination of the scope of the insurer's liability and the correctness of deductions from compensation.
1. Liability for the collision:
- The Court closely examined documentary Exhibit 18 and the photographs. Exhibit 18 showed damage to the truck concentrated on its front—destruction of the radiator and its tubes, bumper bending directed from front to rear, cuts on the front tyre, scratches, and damage to the diesel tank with direction from front to rear.
- The Court found that all damages were on the front side (radiator, bumper, diesel tank, front tyre), with no damage to the sides of the truck; the pattern and direction of damage supported the conclusion that the truck struck the motorcycle from behind.
- On that evidentiary basis (oral evidence evaluated in light of the documentary and photo evidence), the Court concluded that the Tribunal's finding — that the truck struck the motorcycle from behind — was just, proper and based on correct appreciation of evidence; thus the Tribunal's finding of liability against the truck owner/driver for rash and negligent driving was confirmed.
2. Insurance liability and deductions from awards:
- Regarding the insurer's aggregate liability, the Court relied on the Supreme Court decision Motor Owner's Ins. Co. Ltd. v. J.K. Modi to hold that the liability of the insurance company in such cases is not limited to Rs. 50,000 as a whole for multiple claimants; the phrase "one accident" is to be read as "accident to one," and therefore the insurer's liability could be Rs. 50,000 in each affected claim subject to the award in each claim.
- Concerning the Tribunal's practice of making a 25% deduction (allegedly to account for the interest/benefit of receiving lump-sum in advance), the Court examined contemporary social and economic circumstances: rising prices, extraordinary delay between accident and realisation of award, and pendency of cases and execution delays. The Court followed a more dynamic, pragmatic interpretation applicable to social welfare legislation and social security for dependants, aligning with Inderlal v. Narendra Kumar and other High Court decisions (Satya Wati Pathak; Srisailam Devastanam).
- Consequently, the Court rejected the traditional deduction practice as obsolete and modified the impugned award to allow the compensation as calculated by the Tribunal without the 25% deduction.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: The Tribunal's finding that the truck, due to rash and negligent driving, struck the motorcycle from behind is confirmed; the awards are modified to increase compensation and to fix the insurer's liability at Rs. 50,000 in each relevant claim (and not Rs. 50,000 in aggregate), and the Tribunal's 25% deduction practice is rejected.
Specific Disposition and Direct Effects
- S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 1982 (Jasoda v. Prem Chand) and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 99 of 1982 (Ramshree v. Prem Chand) are allowed to the extent indicated below; the three appeals filed by Prem Chand (the truck owner) are dismissed.
- Modifications made by this Court (as reflected in the opinion):
- Claim Petition No. 1 of 1977 (Ramshree v. Prem Chand): Damages increased from Rs. 1,12,500 (Tribunal award) to Rs. 1,50,000.
- Claim Petition No. 7 of 1977 (Jasoda v. Prem Chand): The Court increases the compensation to Rs. 63,000 — the opinion states the award is increased "from Rs. 47,250 to Rs. 63,000" (note: the Tribunal's earlier figure in the opinion for Jasoda was recorded at Rs. 47,520 in paragraph 4; the Court's modification paragraph references Rs. 47,250). The Court's operative increase is to Rs. 63,000.
- Claim Petition No. 6 of 1977 (Govind Saran v. Prem Chand): The compensation of Rs. 3,000 allowed for damage to the motorcycle is to be fully indemnified by the insurance company (i.e., fully paid by the insurer rather than partially as the Tribunal had ordered).
- In all these cases, the liability of the insurance company is fixed to the extent of Rs. 50,000 in each case (not jointly for all cases), subject to the award amounts in each claim.
- Interest: The claimants are entitled to interest on the amounts at the rate of 12% per annum if the said amount is not paid; the interest is chargeable after two months from the date of the judgment until realization, on the proportionate amount that remains unpaid and proportionately to the extent of the insurer's liability indicated above.
- Costs: There would be no order as to costs.
Note on consistency of figures: The opinion records the Tribunal's award for Jasoda in paragraph 4 as Rs. 47,520, but in paragraph 19 records an increase "from Rs. 47,250 to Rs. 63,000." The Court's operative modification increases the Jasoda award to Rs. 63,000 as stated in the opinion.
G.M Lodha, J.:— Three Misc. Claim Petitions (Nos. 1, 6 and 7 of 1977) decided by one common judgment/award dated 16th July, 1981, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur are subject matter of the five appeals before this court.
2. S.B Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 129 of 1981 and 99 of 1982 relates to the claimants, Ramshree and others. S.B Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 128 of 1981 and 22 of 1982 relates to the claimants, Jasoda and others. S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 130 of 1981 relates to the claimants, Govind Saran and others, the owner of the motor cycle. These five appeals were heard together. In S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 1982, Mr. Srivastava submitted that he would not like to press appeal against the driver-Mohansingh and therefore, it may be heard even though he has not been heard.
3. Now coming to the facts of the accident. It may be mentioned that on 15th December, 1976, Mahendra Singh, husband of Mrs. Ramshree and Purshottam Lal, the husband of Mrs. Jasoda, both, were coming on motor cycle No. RJD 7623 towards Paramdara village from Guhana village. When they turned towards Deeg, on the main Kama route, the truck USO 4427 fully loaded going towards Deeg, struck the motor cycle from behind. Purshottam Lal fell away with jump and the truck crushed Mahendra Singh and the motor cycle was dragged to 30 yards from the site of the accident. Mahendra Singh died on the spot and Purshottam breathed his last in the hospital soon thereafter at Deeg. The motor cycle relates to Hindustan Krishi Yantralaya, Deeg. The truck owner was Premchand and the driver Mohansingh. The truck was insured with New India Assurance Company.
4. The claim petitions were contested on various grounds but, ultimately, the award was given for Rs. 1,12,500/- in favour of Mrs. Ramshree, Ramvijaysingh, Raghvendrasingh, Devendrasingh and Mrs. Bhoodevi, mother of Mahendra Singh; Rs. 47,520/- in favour of Jasoda wd/o Purshottam Lal, Kumari Mamta, Om Prakash and Rs. 3,000/- in favour of Govind Saran the owner of the motor cycle for the damages caused to the motor cycle.
5. The Tribunal held that the total liability of the insurance company cannot be more than Rs. 50,000/- as a whole and apportioned the amount.
6. Prem Chand, the owner of the truck USO 4427, has filed three separate appeals against the common award of the Tribunal, as mentioned above. The claimants have filed appeals only for increase of the amount in the two cases of death.
7. At the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, I have heard the arguments in all the cases together. Even the appeal No. 22 of 1982 which was incomplete has been heard because the respondents are represented by Mr. G.C Mathur and Mr. H.M Bhargava and, they have no objection in getting a joint common decision in all these cases.
8. Mr. G.C Mathur, the learned counsel, who has argued the case on behalf of the owner of the truck, has vehemently submitted that there was no negligence or rashness of the truck driver in the present case and, therefore, all the three awards should be set aside. Mr. Mathur, alternatively argued that there was contributory negligence of the motor cycle driver, also.
9. Mr. Mathur pointed out that, while the truck was going on the main road, the motor cycle came from the side of the road connecting the main road and, therefore, it was the duty of the motor cycle driver to slow down and allow truck to pass. According to Mr. Mathur, the motor cycle dashed and struck and, collided against the said truck after more than half portion of the said truck had already passed from the one side.
10. Mr. Mathur argued that the finding of the Tribunal that truck struck motor cycle from behind is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained.
11. The oral as well as documentary evidence has been referred to by Mr. Mathur at great length and, he took great pains to elaborate his contentions. The claimants in all the cases are represented by Mr. S.C Srivastava. According to him, the accident did not take place when the motor cycle entered the main road from the side road. Mr. Srivastava pointed out that the motor cycle had already taken turn on the main road and after some time, the truck came from behind and struck the motor cycle. Mr. Srivastava also referred to oral and documentary evidence, in this respect.
12. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. In order to appreciate the controversy, I have devoted sufficient time to the appreciation of the oral evidence and, further in that light, examined the documentary evidence consisting of Exh. 18 which in my opinion, the damage caused to the truck in the shape of destruction of its radiator along with its tubes, bending of the bumper on the front side with a direction from front to rear and cuts on the tyre on the front wheel alongwith scratches at very places and further damage caused to diesel tank having direction from the front to rear side, unequivocally goes to show that the truck struck motor cycle from behind. It is significant that no damage has been caused on any side of the body of the truck and all the damages are on the front side where radiator, bumper and diesel tank etc., are fixed with the engine. The cuts and scratches on the front tyre of the truck further shows that the truck struck the motor cycle from behind. I have appreciated the oral evidence in the light of the document (Exh. 18) and the photos produced in the case. All the photos exhibited are of front side of the truck where the damage has been caused from backside of the motor cycle. In my opinion, this provides clinching evidence with the finding of the Tribunal that, the accident took place when the truck came from behind and struck the motor cycle, is just and proper and based on correct appreciation of evidence warranting no interference in appeal so far as this aspect of the case is concerned.
13. In view of the above finding of the Tribunal in respect of the liability of the owner of the truck for the accident which happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck, is confirmed.
14. The second and much more important point argued by Mr. Mathur relates to the liability of the insurance company. I would not enter into the detail discussion because in view of the decision of the apex court in Motor Owner's Ins. Co. Ltd. v. J.K Modi, 1981 ACJ 507 (SC), it is now authoritatively laid down that the liability of the insurance company in cases of accidents of this nature is not limited to Rs. 50,000/- as a whole for all but, ‘one accident’ means accident to one.
15. It would, therefore, be necessary to increase the liability of the insurance company in all the three claim petitions, limiting it to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- depending upon the amount awarded in each case.
16. Now coming to the two appeals filed by the claimants of the two deceased. The sole submission of Mr. Srivastava is that the deduction made by the Tribunal to the extent of 25% from the total compensation calculated on the basis of the earlier decision wherein while awarding the lump sum amount, some deduction is usually made, on account of the interest which the claimants get and the benefit which they get in advance; has not been accepted by this Court and many other High Courts in the context of the changed social circumstances. Here again, after a detailed discussion, I have taken the view in Inderlal v. Narendra Kumar, 1985 ACJ 303 (Raj), that the latest approach in this distinct field of social welfare legislation should be not to minimise the compensation by making deduction. I have noticed the following circumstances for taking this view:
“Rise in prices and spiral on prices of all the commodities which is ever increasing in an unprecedented manner, the extra ordinary delay which takes place between the date of the accident and the realisation of the amount partially on account of the pendency of the cases in Tribunal and appeals before the High Court and partially on account of the execution of the decree.”
17. I have followed the view taken by Delhi High Court in Satya Wati Pathak v. Hari Ram, 1983 ACJ 424 (Delhi) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Srisailam Devastanam v. Bhavani Pramilamma, 1983 ACJ 580 (AP).
18. I am, therefore of the opinion that the dynamic and pragmatic interpretation of this social welfare legislation which is a measure of social security for the dependency of the deceased or injured requires that traditional deduction based on the principles of British system should be treated as obsolete and outdated in the present times. Accordingly, I modify the impugned award and would allow the compensation calculated by the Tribunal without making any deduction which has been done by the Tribunal.
19. The result would be that in Claim Petition No. 1 of 1977 (Ramshree v. Prem Chand) the amount of damages and compensation would be Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of Rs. 1,12,500/- allowed by the Tribunal. In another Claim Petition No. 7 of 1977 (Jasoda v. Prem Chand) the compensation awarded is increased from Rs. 47,250/- to Rs. 63,000/-. In both these cases, the liability of the insurance company would be to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- in each case and not jointly for all cases.
20. In Claim Petition No. 6 of 1977 (Govind Saran v. Prem Chand), the compensation of Rs. 3,000/- allowed for the damage caused to the motor cycle would be fully indemnified by the insurance company and not partially, as per the impugned award of the Tribunal. With the above modifications in the impugned award, S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 1982 (Jasoda v. Prem Chand) and S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 99 of 1982 (Ramshree v. Prem Chand) are allowed, as indicated above, and, three appeals filed by the appellant Prem Chand are dismissed. It is further directed that the claimants should be entitled to get interest on the above amount at the rate of 12% p.a if the said amount is not paid or has not been paid so far. This interest rate would be chargeable after two months from today till the date of realisation on the proportionate amount which would remain unpaid and proportionately to the extent of the liability, as indicated above from the respondent-non-claimants.
21. There would be no order as to costs.
Alert