BIJOY KUMAR DUGAR versus BIDYADHAR DUTT AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 803 · Decided: 01-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. SRIKRISHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BIJOY KUMAR DUGAR 
A 
v. 
BIDY ADHAR DUTT A AND ORS. 
MARCH I, 2006 
[B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166: 
Accident claim-Head-on collision between car and bus-Amount of 
compensation-Appeal for enhancement of-Future prospects of the deceased- C 
Contributory negligence-The car's driver died in the accident-Claimants 
were the deceased's father and mother aged 50 years and 45 years 
respectively-MACT awarded a certain sum as compensation-Insurance 
Company directed to pay half the amount of compensation as the deceased 
was held liable for contributory negligence-High Court riefected the claimants' D 
appeal for enhancement of compensation-Held: Compensation should be the 
pecuniary loss to the dependants by the death of a person-Claimants have 
to prove that the deceased had opportunities or special qualifications which 
would have led to an improvement in his income-There is no evidence 
produced on record by claimants regarding fature prospects of increase of 
income in course of employment or business or profession-Hence, MACT has E 
awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. 
Accident claim-Head-on collision between car and bus-Contributory 
negligence-PW.2, who was travelling in the car along with the .deceased, 
stated that the driver of the offending bus was driving the vehicle in an 
abnormal speed and also in a zigzag manner-MA CT, disbelieving the evidence F 
of PW. 2, held both the vehicles liable for contributory negligence-Therefore, 
insurance company directed to pay half the amount of compensation-
Correctness of-Held: The MACT has rightly observed that had it been the 
knocking on one side of the car, the negligence or rashness could have been 
wholly fastened on the driver of the bus-But when the vehicles had a head- G 
on collision, the drivers of both the vehicles should be held equally responsible 
for the accident-Hence, tribunal's order justified. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
803 
H 
804 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Article 226--Writ petition~Maintainability of-Insurance Company 
challenged order passed by Motor Vehicles Accident Tribunal (MACT) 
awarding interest rd) 10% p.a on the amount of compensation-High Court 
allowed the writ petition holding that the claimants were entitled to interest 
only for two years---Correctness of--Held: Under S 173 of the Motor Vehicles 
B Act, 1988 insurer has a right 10 file appeal before the High Court on limited 
grounds under S 149(2)-Since the insurer had a remedy by filing an appeal 
before the High Court. writ petition challenging the award of interest by the 
Tribunal is not maintainable. 
There was an accident wherein two vehicles, namely, a car and a 
C bus were involved in a head-on collision. The driver of the car died in the 
accident on the spot. The deceased, a science graduate, was 24 years old 
at the time of the accident and was prosecuting law studies and was 
earning Rs. 4,000 per month. The deceased was unmarried and the 
claimants were his father and mother aged 50 years and 45 years 
respectively. There was no evidence produced on record by the claimants 
D regarding future prospects of increase of income in the course of 
employment or business or profession. PW-2, who was traveling in the 
car along with the deceased, s11ated that, before the accident, the deceased 
noticed a passenger bus coming from the opposite direction and the 
movement of the bus was not normal as it was coming in a zigzag manner. 
E 
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) came to the 
conclusion that both the deceased and the driver of the bus were driving 
their respective vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and the accident 
was as a result of their contributory negligence for which the insurer-
respondent No. 3 was liable to pay half of the amount of compensation to 
F the claimants. It also directed that the amount of compensation as awarded 
be paid with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of 
filing of the claim petition till payment. 
The High Court dismissed the appeal of the claimants for 
enhancement of the compensation, but allowed the writ petition of the 
G insurer holding the claimants entitled to interest on the award amount 
only for a period of two years, i.e. from IO.l.1989 to October, 1990 when 
the Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement before 
the MACT. Hence the appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
BUOY

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.