Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On Friday, while hearing an appeal against a 2017 Delhi High Court judgement in a motor vehicle claim, a bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M Shantagoudar refused the contention of an insurance company that the contributory negligence had not been established.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the high court failed to establish the negligence on the part of the driver on account of the fact that the taxi driver involved in the accident had collided against a stationary truck. Respondent 1 in the present case had suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident while travelling in Haridwar, Uttrakhand admittedly insured against third party risk with Oriental insurance Company Ltd. (the present appellant).
Regards to the claim petition, the tribunal has accepted the case for compensation on the ground that the accident in which injuries were sustained occurred due to negligence on the part of the taxi driver. Talking about the contributory negligence, the insurance company contended that negligence on the part of the taxi driver had not been properly proved since the claimant was herself in the course of her deposition had conceded at one stage that she was sleeping during the travel. To which, the high court observed that the contention of the insurance company about there being no proper proof of negligence on the part of the taxi driver only because the claimant fell asleep. The very fact that the taxi had collided against the stationery truck speaks volumes about the negligence on the part of the driver.
On the basis of the evidence, the tribunal had “accepted the claim to effect that claimant had been rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 100% making the calculation of loss of future earnings accordingly, the assumption being that she had lost her job due to paraplegic stage to which she had been reduced and she would not be gainfully employed for the remainder of her life”. Finally the rate of interest of 7.5% awarded by the tribunal was enhanced to 9% by the high court. The same has been reduced to 8% by the Supreme Court due to the presence of peculiar facts in the case.
86540
103860
630
114
59824