R.D. HATTANGADI versus MIS. PEST CONTROL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 06-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

r 
R.D. HATTANGADI 
v. 
MIS. PEST CONTROL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS. 
JANUARY 6, 1995 
[AM. AHMADI, CT AND N.P. SINGH, J.] 
Tort-Composite Negligence-Head on collision between car and Motor 
Lorry-Front left side of car entangled with front middle of lorry-R.ashness 
on part of drivers of two vehicles--lnjured entitled for damages from owners 
A 
B 
of both vehicles. 
C 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section JlOB-Accident Claim-Fixing 
amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident-Damages to be 
assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages-Awarding of 
compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life-Special 
circumstances including age of claimant and dep_rivation suffered to be taken D 
into account. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section JlOB-Accident claim-Pecuniary 
Damages--lnjured 52 years of age suffered 100% disability and paraplegia 
below waist-Claim for Fowler's Bed, electric wheel chair and air inflated E 
be~Award of Rs. 1,47,00r>-<::laim for Home Attendants-Award of Rs. 
55,450 for present and Rs. 1,87,200 for future-Claim for Drugs and Tablets 
(Allopathic)-Award of Rs. 9,000 for present and Rs. 18,000 for fu-
ture-Claim for Physiotherapy-Award of Rs. 34,200 for present and 
Rs.50,000 for future Claim for loss of earning-Award of Rs. 1,80,000. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section llOB-Accident claim-Non 
Pecuniary damages--lnjured, an advocate having a good practice, 52 years of 
age-Suffered 100% disability and paraplegia below waist-Award of Rs. 
1,50,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000 for loss of amenities of life. 
Accident Claim-lnterest-Not payable over amount directed to be paid 
to injured in respect of future expenditure. 
The appellant met with an accident while travelling in a car owned 
by Respondent No.1. The appellant suffered serious injuries in the head 
F 
G 
on collision of the car and a motor lorry resulting in 100% disability and H 
75 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
paraplegia below the waist. Notices given to the Insurance Company and 
other parties liable to pay compensation resulted in no response so the 
appellant filed a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 
on 13.11.1980. 
B 
The appellant was a practising advocate who used to appear in the 
High Court and Supreme Court of India. He was also a Judge of the City 
Civil Court for some time until he resigned in 1964. Because of the 
accident, he became disabled and was unable to resume his practice. 
The owner of the lorry resisted his liability to pay any compensation 
C 
on the ground that the vehicle was insured and so the insurance company 
was liable to pay compensation, if any, to the appellant. The owner of the 
car resisted the claim asserting that the accident took place entirely due 
to the negligence of the driver of the motor lorry. In any case, according 
to the respondent, the compensation claimed was excessive, imaginary and 
speculative in nature. 
D 
The Accident Claims Tribunal passed an Award directing respon-
dents 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally Rs. 26,25,992 with interest at the 
rate of 12% per ~mum from the date of the application till payment. The 
insurer of the motor lorry was liable to pay Rs. 50,000 and interest thereon 
E 
and the insurer of the car was directed to pay all the compensation along 
with interest on behalf of respondent No. 1. The Tribunal was of the view 
that there was composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both 
vehicles. 
Two appeals were filed against the award, one on behalf of the 
F 
appellant for enhancement of the compensation and the other on behalf of 
the owner of the car and its insurance company questioning the validity 
and correctness of the award. The High Court reduced the compensation 
from Rs. 26,25,992 to Rs. 8,57,352 and the rate of interest to 6% per annum. 
Against this the present appeals and S.L.P. have been filed. 
G 
Disposing the matter, this Court 
HELD : 1.1 Any damage caused by negligent conduct is generally 
actionable irrespective of the kind of activity out of which the damage 
arose. Any person usirtg the road as a motorist will be liable, if by his 
H action he negligently causes physical injuries to any body else. In the 
~. 
\_
' 
R.D. HATIJ\NGADI v. PEST CON1ROL (I) PVT. LTD. 
77 
instant case, the fact that the front left side of the car was entangled with A 
the front middle of the lorry indicated about the rashness on the part of 
the drivers of the t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.