Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Asha Devi vs Assistant Director State Insurance And ... on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4601-4602 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 20709-20710 OF 2018
ASHA DEVI & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR STATE INSURANCE AND
PROVIDENT FUND DEPARTMENT & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, wherein the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was allowed and the claim Signature Not Verified petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Digitally signed by Charanjeet kaur Date: 2021.08.06 17:46:50 IST Reason: was dismissed. The reason for dismissing the claim application was that the wife of the deceased had not deposed regarding the manner 2 of accident as she was not the eye witness. It was thus held that the accident is not proved to be on account of negligent driving of tractor by its driver.
3. We find that the reasoning given by the High Court is patently erroneous. The deceased-Ummed Singh was working as a cleanliness employee with the Municipal Council, Beawar. He had gone along with the tractor to pick up the garbage. The wife of the deceased appeared as her own witness and produced certain documents to prove income of the deceased. On behalf of the respondents, an employee of the Insurance Company was produced as NAW-1 Akhil Ahmad and NAW-2 Tarachand Sharma. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that the deceased was an employee of Municipal Council drawing a salary of Rs. 13,016/- per month and was of 46 years of age. The Tribunal assessed the compensation as Rs. 20,14,734/- based upon the last drawn salary and future prospects. The Tribunal also granted simple interest @ 6% per annum.
4. The deceased-Ummed Singh was an employee of the Municipal Council. As per the appellant, the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the Tractor. However, the driver of the trac- tor namely, Hariprakash was not produced as a witness. He was the witness who could depose in respect of the manner of accident and to prove that he was not negligent in driving tractor. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will come into play as the respondents have failed to discharge onus on them to prove that the accident was not 3 on account of any negligent driving of the Tractor. This Court in Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan, (1974) 1 SCC 690 held that the maxim res ipsa loquitur is resorted to when an accident is shown to have occurred and the cause of the accident is primarily within the knowledge of the defendant.
5. Consequently, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the finding of the Tribunal holding that the accident was on account of rash and negligence driving of the tractor driven by the driver.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the Tractor could not carry any passenger, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay compensation. The said argument is not tenable as the insurance policy itself has a clause that one passenger is permissible to be carried on the Tractor. This passenger is in addition to driver as driver cannot be called passenger. Still further the Municipal Council has produced evidence of payment of the additional premium to insure four passengers.
7. In view of the said facts, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is restored. However, the claimant shall be entitled to 9 % interest on the amount of compensation awarded that is Rs.20,14,734/- from the date of filing 4 of the claim application till realization. The appeals are allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………………………J. [HEMANT GUPTA] …………………………………………J. [A.S.BOPANNA] New Delhi 4th August, 2021 5 ITEM NO.6 Court 13 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20709- 20710/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-03-2018 in SBCMA No. 2800/2014 22-03-2018 in SBCMA No. 2926/2014 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jaipur) ASHA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR STATE INSURANCE AND PROVIDENT FUND DEPARTMENT & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) Date : 04-08-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Ms. Disha Bhandari, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Padhmalakshmi Iyengar, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Chatanya Siddharta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(JAGDISH KUMAR) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)