Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this present case of Mohammad Siddiquie and Anrs. Vs National Insurance Co. ltd and Ors., the father of the deceased who is the appellant in this case after being dissatisfied with the order of the High Court on reducing the compensation amount as awarded by the Moto Vehicle claims tribunal which was 11,66,800 but reduced to 4, 14,000 by HC. In this case, appellants son while riding on the bike as a pillion rider along with one other pillion rider and one driver met an accident on 5-09-2008 and as a result of injuries suffered died two days later on 7-09-2008 , he was 23 years old and was a bachelor it was also contended by the appellant ( his father) that he was the earning member of the family and was working as hired employee in proprietor business on a salary of 9,600 a month. The bike he was riding on as a pillion driver got hit by a car from back which resulted into his death later on it was found by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal that the accidet happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the car which hit the motor cycle from back and thus while considering the arguments and condition of the appellant explained by him tribunal awarded the claim of 11,66,800 to the appellant.
Later this case was brought to HC by the aggreived respondent, in wich it was argued from the respondent that since the deceased was travelling with two pillion riders on a bike on highway, he was violating the rules presicribed in the Roads and safety rules manual, thus he was contributory negligent in this case and the fact was accepted that the car hit the bike from back which caused the accident. High Court observed that in this the presence of element of cotributory negligence does exist and since the victim wason the fault he may be liable for the damae he suffered as in this case he is the deceased due to the injuries inflicted of the accident. HC while considering all the evidences and facets of this case held that the compensation should be provided to the appellant as their young and earning son has died but reuced the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
To which the aggrieved father of the deceased, who is the appellant in this case brought the case to the bench of Supreme Court before Justice N.V. Ramanna and V. Subramaniam who found the judgement of HC not fine and fair and disagreed while stating that though in this present case the diseased was at fault but the main reason of the accident was the rash and neligent driving of the car driver which hit it from the back , Thus unless the fault of the deceased or the victim does not contribute as one of the main cause of the accident it can not be understood as Contributory Negligence and ordered to restore the claim awarded to the appellant by the victim.
86540
103860
630
114
59824