Uttarakhand High Court
Devendra Singh And Another vs Union Of India Through Its Commanding ... on 9 May, 2017
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2013
Devendra Singh & Another .... Appellants
Versus
Union of India Through its Commanding Officer & Another
.... Respondents
Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunder Singh Mehra, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate along with Mr. Bharat Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Having considered, urgency application (IA No. 2397/2017) is allowed. With the consent of both the parties the merits of the case have been heard today itself. It transpires that the Army Maruti Gypsy No. 05B 091144M, being driven by the Army personnel Neel Kamal, was on the Ranikhet Almora road. At some distance in the front, small dumper truck no. UK-01CA-0319, filled with sand, was about to unload the loaded sand in it with the mechanism of automatic hydraulic operative system.
The incident occurred on 14.02.2012 at 03:45 PM and the Maruti Gypsy reached at the spot just in the side of truck and the events so quickly happened that the driver of the truck switched on the hydraulic operative system in order to unload the sand, the driver of Maruti Gypsy Mr. Neel Kamal, however, could not anticipate such a prompt operating system affixed for unloading with the truck. As a consequence, thereof, the Maruti Gypsy was damaged in the process of such unloading because at such spur of the moment, the Gypsy had arrived touching the truck at such time. The Gypsy was badly damaged. So, a claim compensation petition asking Rs. 2,42,670/- for damages was instituted by Union of India to recover, so caused, to the Gypsy.
2Such truck was insured with Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company, but it was for the third party and for other purpose like present one, the liability of the insurer was limited up to the limits of Rs. 6,000/- only. The learned Tribunal decreed the claim petition no. 4/2012 for the amount indicated above with a direction to share Rs. 6,000/- out of such total compensation by the Insurance Company.
The rest of the amount was liable to be paid by the driver and owner of the truck jointly and severely.
Feeling aggrieved with the fastening of such liability this appeal has been preferred. The learned senior counsel has argued that driver of the truck could not be held owing full responsibilities of the accident because this Maruti Gypsy was coming from behind and the driver Mr. Neel Kamal was supposed to be cautious enough while overtaking the parked small truck on the side of the road. Although, lifting of the rear portion of the truck by the hydraulic operative system was all of a sudden, but even though, had Mr. Neel Kamal be cautious enough while surpassing such parked small truck? Then, the gravity of the accident could have been reduced to an extent.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the fitness of thing to reduce atleast 40 percent liability on account of the lackness of the degree of caution on the part of Mr. Neel Kamal.
The liability of Rs. 2,42,670/- will be reduced by 40 percent accordingly. The remaining amount, so calculated, shall be recoverable from the appellants.
Appeal thus stands disposed of.
LCR be sent back.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 09.5.2017 Pooja