SMT. SARLA DIXIT AND ANR. versus BALWANT YADAV AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 29-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. SARLA DIXIT AND ANR. 
v. 
BALWANT YADAV AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 29, 1996 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--Section llOA-Accident claim-Deceased, 
aged 27 years was serving as Captain in Anny-<iross salary of Rs. 1500 
..., 
C p.m.-Future-Average gross monthly income of Rs. 2200-1/Jrd deducted by 
way of personal expenses-Multiplier of 15-Rs. 15,00o-By way of loss of 
estate and consortium-Award of total amount of Rs. 2,85,000. 
Tort-Contributory Negligence-Accident on intersection of public 
road-Deceased on scooter had crossed centre of road going towards southern 
D side-Truck coming from western side dashed with right side of scooter-Case 
of negligence of driver of truck:-Deceased had not contributed to the accident. 
The appellants, widow and daughter of the deceased who died in a 
road accident, filed a claim petition u/s HOA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 
1939, claiming a sum of Rs. 6,12,524 on various heads against the respon· 
E dents, driver and owner of the offending truck. The Accident Claims 
Tribunal after computing the compensation of Rs. 1,70,238 on account of 
untimely death of the deceased, payable to the appellant slicell it down by 
75% on the ground that deceased was guilty of contributory negligence to 
the extent of 75% and the truck driver was negligenct only to the extent of 
F 25% and awarded in all Rs. 42,569 to the appellants. Respondents nos. 1 
and 2 were made liable to pay the amount while respondent no. 3, the 
insurance company was exonerated by the Tribunal on ground that at the 
relevant time the offending truck W'dS being driven by respondent no. 2 who 
was not having any driving licence. In appeal, the High Court awarded a 
G total compensation of Rs. 54,000 while holding that nothing was required 
to be sliced down from the amount as deceased was not guilty of any 
contributory negligence and the entire negligence rested on the shoulder 
of respondent no. 2, driver of the truck. Appellant's rest of the claim 
against respondents was dismissed. Challenge of respondents nos. 1 and • 
2 to the award of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company was 
H rejected by the High Court. It was ordered that the appellants shall receive 
30 
SARLADIXITv. B. YADAV 
31 
one half costs of the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal and one-half A 
costs of the appeal from respondents nos. 1 and 2 while they had to pay 
the cost of insurance company i'n the proceeding before the claim Tribunal. 
The appellants aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court 
obtained special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India 
from this Court. 
B 
The appellants contended that the deceased aged 27 years, serving 
as Captain in Indian Army, was going on scooter when he was hit by the 
offending truck while the scooter had entered the intersection, resulting in 
his instantaneons death; that once it was held that the accident was caused C 
on account of sole negligence of respondent no. 2, driver of the truck, 
looking to the yonng age of the deceased and his future prospects in life 
the High Court should have granted appropriate compensation to the 
appellants and that the award of Rs. 54,000 was extremely conservative 
and was too low. 
The respondents nos. 1 and 2 while snpporting the award of com-
pensation as granted by the High Court sought to challenge the finding of 
High Court that deceased was not guilty of any contributory negligence, 
snbmitting that the Tribunal was right in taking the view that deceased 
D 
was guilty of contributory negligence and that in any case the amount E 
awarded by the High Court was not required to be enhanced, even though 
it might not be reduced as there was no cross appeal by respondents nos. 
1and2. 
Y 
The points raised for determination were (i) what was the proper 
amonnt of compensation payable to the appellants on account of the F 
accidental death of deceased· caused by the offending truck ? and (ii) 
whether deceased had contributed towards the accident by his own 
negligence to any extent. 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
G 
HELD : 1.1. Deceased, the only bread-winner in the family of the 
appellants was cut short in the prime period of life at the age of 27 by the 
accident caused by the truck.driver respondent no. 2. He had put in seven 
years of niilitary service by that time. He was earlier a Lieutenant in the 
Anny. Then he was promoted to the rank of Captain and was fully qualified H 
32 
SUPR

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