LexKAUSHALYA DEVI versus SHRI KARAN ARORA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
._ A KAUSHAL YA DEVI " " V. SHRI KARAN ARORA AND ORS. MAY 14, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, l 988: • ~ s.166 r!w ss. 140 and 141-Motor accident-Death of a child of 14 c years-Driver of vehicle also a minor-Tribunal holding that insurer had no liability-Owner held liable to pay compensation assessed at rupees one lakh with l 2 % interest from the date of claim till realization-Held, in case of young children neither income of deceased child nor loss suffered by parents is capable of mathematical computation, and relevant factor would D be age of parents-On facts, claimant husband of appellant since has already died, quantum awarded by Tribunal not interfered with. A claim petition in terms of Section 166, 140 and 141 of the Motor ~ Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed by husband of the appellant that their son aged 14 years died as a result of a motor accident. The driver, the owner and the E insurer of the v;;hicle were impleaded as respondent nos. 1 to 3 whereas the appellant was arrayed as respondent no. 4. During the hearing of the claim petition it came to light that the driver was the minor having no licence. The Tribunal held the owner of the vehicle liable and awarded rupees one lakh compensation alongwith 12% interest from the date of claim till realization. F The appeal filed by the claimant was dismissed. The claimant since died; his wife, the mother of the deceased, filed the instant appeal. l>ismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: In cases where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be G age of parents, in cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessm~nt on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation. Applying the principles indicated in Satender's case* to the facts of the instant case and the fact that the husband ../ ' of the appellant has already died, there is no scope for interference with the H 570 I KAUSHALYADEVlv.KARANARORA[PASAYAT,J.] 571 quantum awarded. (Para 9, 11 and 13) [575-A, B, C) *New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender and Ors., AIR (2007) SC 324 and Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Biharand Ors., [2001] 9 SCC 197, relied on. A *State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors., [2003) 7 SCC 484, B referred to. *Mallett v. McMongale, (1970) AC 166; Davies v. Taylor, (1974) AC 207 and Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collerie Ltd., (1942) 1 All ER 657, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2479 of2007. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 08.01.1999 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A. F.O. No. 2439of1998. Himanshu Gupta and Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Appellant. Sachin Jain and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT P ASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab. and Haryana High Court which dismissed the appeal filed by the husband of the appellant. In the appeal, appellant was respondent no.4. 3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows: A claim petition was filed by the husband of the appellant, namely, Balwant Singh in terms of Sections 166, 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). In the claim petition, the present appellant was impleaded as respondent no.4 while the driver of the vehicle no. HR 41/3347 c D E F and the owner of the vehicle were impleaded as respondents I and 2. The G United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') was impleaded as respondent no.3. In the claim petition f:led on 15 .3 .1997 which was registered on 17.3 .1997, it was alleged that the son of Balwant Singh (claimant) and the present appellant, died as a result of the vehicular accident in which the aforesaid car was involved. The deceased was aged H 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A about 14 years and was the only son of the appellant. The accident took place on 5.2.1997 when Karan Arora (respondent no. I) came to the house of the claimant and requested the deceased to accompany him in his car. The car was being driven by the said Karan Arora. The vehicle met with an accident. The deceased lost his life. A claim ofRs.10,00,000/- was made. On receipt of B the notice from the Mo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.