After going through the judgment in detail as also the
documents produced by the learned advocate for the appellant
by a separate compilation, it emerges that the copy of chargesheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle – Truck and the fact that he is prosecuted in the Court of law, if at all, chargesheet is filed against the driver, his own statement recorded in the said criminal case would never form a part of charge-sheet as it cannot be used against him during the course of trial. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that statement of the driver, which is read by the learned advocate for the appellant is forming part of the charge-sheet. Over and above that, even considering the same, in absence of driver being
examined before the Tribunal, the evidence led before it with
regard to sole negligence of the driver cannot be disputed by the
Insurance Company. If at all, the alleged accident took place in
the manner in which it is argued before the Court, no one has
prevented the Insurance Company to examine the driver of the
offending vehicle before the Tribunal so that claimants could
have cross-examined him to support their assertion in the claim
petition.
After examining the evidence led before it, the Tribunal has
correctly concluded in paragraph No.11 holding the driver of
offending vehicle -Truck to be solely responsible and negligent in
driving it, which caused the death of the deceased.
Neither from the statement nor from the judgment,
Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant could make out a
case for interference on the ground of attributing any
contributory negligence to the deceased and therefore, there is
no substance in this appeal as it is the sole point raised to assail
the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 57 of 2022
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Vs ASHABEN VIKRAMBHAI CHAUHAN
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 08/03/2022
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar dated
27.07.2021 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.70 of 2019
whereby the claimants came to be awarded compensation of
Rs.25,28,000/- from the opponents before the Tribunal jointly
and severally together with running interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of petition till payment along with
proportionate cost of the petition, for death of Vikrambhai
Manjibhai Chauhan caused in vehicular accident who happened
to be the husband of original claimant No.1 and son of claimant
Nos.2 and 3.
Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the impugned
judgment and award, are as under.
It is asserted in the Claim Petition that on 22.02.2019, at
about 6.00 p.m. on Bhavnagar – Rajkot highway while the
deceased – Vikrambhai Manjibhai Chauhan was driving the Hero
Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-04-CN-2117 in a
moderate speed and on his correct side, the opponent No.1
drove the Taurus Truck bearing registration No.GJ-03-AT-2999 in
a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and
dashed with the Motorcycle driven by the deceased. Because of
the said accident, deceased sustained serious injuries and
succumbed to the said injuries. It is for the death of deceased
the original claimants as aforesaid has filed a Claim Petition.
Since deceased was earning Rs.11,760/- per month serving
as Assistant Production Manager in the Sarvottam Dairy at the
time of his death, after elaborate discussion and consideration of
the evidence led before it, Tribunal considered Rs.11,379/- as
monthly income of the deceased for awarding just compensation.
After going through the monthly earning, 50% of it was added
towards prospective earning and thereby the earning of the
deceased per month came to Rs.17,069/- and multiplying by 12,
it came to Rs.2,04,820/- per annum. Since deceased was within
the age group of 21 to 25 years, after applying appropriate
multiplier of 18, the Tribunal has reached the compensation
towards future loss of income to be Rs.24,57,936/- adding loss to
the estate, funeral expenses and as loss of consortium, total
amount awarded as compensation, rounded to Rs.25,28,000/-, as
aforesaid.
Mr.Chirayu Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant
drawing attention of the Court to a statement of driver of the
offending vehicle, which is produced by a separate list of
documents submitted that it is only the deceased who can be
said to be negligent on a highway crossing the road in between
the divider and if not solely responsible at-least contributory
negligence be also considered to be attributed to the deceased
himself. In support of the aforesaid contention, which is raised
even in the written arguments, he further drew attention of the
Court to the statement of the first informant, which is recorded
pursuant to First Information Report, that accident occurred
while crossing road from the divider. Therefore, he has submitted
that at-least some portion of contributory negligence is required
to be attributed to the deceased which will reduce the burden of
the appellant.
Though no other submission is canvassed, except the
contributory negligence, which could be attributed reading the
First Information Report as also the statement of the driver, he
has fairly conceded that for rest of the award, there is no room
for argument.
After going through the judgment in detail as also the
documents produced by the learned advocate for the appellant
by a separate compilation, it emerges that the copy of chargesheet
filed against the driver of the offending vehicle – Truck and
the fact that he is prosecuted in the Court of law, if at all, chargesheet
is filed against the driver, his own statement recorded in
the said criminal case would never form a part of charge-sheet
as it cannot be used against him during the course of trial.
Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that statement of
the driver, which is read by the learned advocate for the
appellant is forming part of the charge-sheet. Over and above
that, even considering the same, in absence of driver being
examined before the Tribunal, the evidence led before it with
regard to sole negligence of the driver cannot be disputed by the
Insurance Company. If at all, the alleged accident took place in
the manner in which it is argued before the Court, no one has
prevented the Insurance Company to examine the driver of the
offending vehicle before the Tribunal so that claimants could
have cross-examined him to support their assertion in the claim
petition.
After examining the evidence led before it, the Tribunal has
correctly concluded in paragraph No.11 holding the driver of
offending vehicle -Truck to be solely responsible and negligent in
driving it, which caused the death of the deceased.
Neither from the statement nor from the judgment,
Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant could make out a
case for interference on the ground of attributing any
contributory negligence to the deceased and therefore, there is
no substance in this appeal as it is the sole point raised to assail
the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.
Order in Civil Application.
In view of dismissal of appeal, this Civil Application also
stands disposed of.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J)
ASHISH M. GADHIYA
No comments:
Post a Comment