MANGLA RAM versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 06-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
287
[2018]  5  S.C.R. 287
         287
MANGLA RAM
v.
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2499-2500 of 2018)
APRIL 06, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Compensation –
Contributory negligence – Claimant’s case was that on a fateful
day while he was driving a motorcycle, he was hit by jeep driven by
respondent no.2 resulting in serious injuries and ultimately
amputation of right leg above the knee – Claim petition – Tribunal
did not accept the evidence of witnesses produced by claimant,
however opined on the basis of police investigation report that the
accident was caused by jeep in question – Tribunal also noted the
site plan and concluded that the claimant was driving on the wrong
side of the road and contributed to accident and accordingly
awarded compensation – High Court set aside the award passed by
Tribunal noting that no finding regarding negligence of driver of
offending jeep was recorded by Tribunal rather it found that the
claimant was negligent while riding his motorcycle and that statement
of claimant that bumper of jeep had hit the rear of his motorcycle
was contradicted by the investigating report  which recorded that it
did not bear out that jeep was involved in an accident – Instant
appeal filed by the claimant – Held: High Court committed manifest
error in reversing holistic view of Tribunal in reference to the
statement of witnesses forming part of charge sheet, FIR, jeep
seizure report – Indeed, the High Court was impressed by the
Mechanical Investigation Report which stated that only a scratch
mark on the mudguard of the left tyre of the vehicle had been noted
– On that basis, High Court observed that the same was in
contradiction to the case of claimant – This conclusion was based
on surmises and conjectures and also in disregard of the relevant
fact that the vehicle was seized by the police after investigation,
only after one month from the date of the accident and the possibility
of the same having been repaired in the meantime could not be
ruled out – Further, the fact that the offending jeep was driven
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
rashly and negligently by respondent No.2 when it collided with the
motorcycle of the claimant leading to the accident could be discerned
from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge-sheet
filed by the police, naming respondent No.2 – The key of negligence
on the part of the driver of the offending jeep as set up by the
claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Further the finding
that motor cycle was found one foot wrong side on the middle of the
road cannot be basis to assume that appellant was driving on the
wrong side of road at the relevant time – Thus, finding of Tribunal
that claimant contributed to occurrence of accident by driving
motorcycle on wrong side of road was wrong and cannot be
sustained.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Quantum of compensation
– The Tribunal noted the claim of the claimant-appellant that he
was getting Rs.1500/- per month towards his salary and Rs.600/-
per month towards food allowance from employer – The fact that
the claimant had possessed heavy transport motor vehicle driving
licence has not been doubted – The driving licence on record being
valid for a limited period, cannot be the basis to belie  the claim of
the claimant duly supported by employer, that the claimant was
employed by him on his  new truck – Besides the said income, the
claimant claimed to have earning of Rs.1000/- per month from
farming fields – The Tribunal, however, pegged the loss of monthly
income to the claimant at Rs.520/- per month while computing the
compensation amount on the finding that there was no convincing
evidence about complete non-employability of the claimant – Further,
no provision was made by the Tribunal towards future prospects –
The Tribunal, therefore, should have computed the loss of income
on that basis – Additionally, the claimant because of amputation of
his right leg would be forced to permanently use prosthetic leg during
his life time – No provision was made by the Tribunal in that regard
– On these heads, the claimant is certainly entitled for enhanced
compensation – Taking the loss of monthly income due to permanent
disability of 40%,  the appellant is held entitled to Rs

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