PRATAPRAI ARJANDAS DHAMEJA Vs. JIVKUVARBA BHUPATSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. H. P. Shroff Director and Mr. D. G. Pujari Administrative Officer (Mithapur) of Tata Chemicals Limited (hereinafter called the Company) reached Jamnagar by the morning flight from Bombay on 1/11/1974 and immediately left in an Ambassador Car GTP 1519 belonging to the Company and driven by one Bhupatsing Gagji for Mithapur. While the car was being driven on the Jamnagar-Dwarka State Highway No. 25 with the aforesaid two officers in the rear seat it got involved in a head on collision with a public carrier GTS 5639 which was proceeding in the opposite direction. This collision took place about nine kilometers from Bhatia towards Dwarka between 1.30 and 1.45 P. M. The driver of the Ambassador Car belonging to the Company was killed on the spot while the two officers were seriously injured and were removed to the Companys Hospital at Mithapur in critical condition. The Medical Officer Dr. G. N. Chag examined them at about 3.45 P. M. and noted down the injuries sustained by the two victims as detailed in the certificates Exhibits 91 and 92. It appears that Mr. Pujari succumbed to his injuries in the hospital while he was under treatment at about 4.30 P. M. Within less than two hours Mr. Shroff also succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.

(2.) The legal representatives of the three unfortunate victims of the accident filed Claim Applications Nos. 13 15 and 17 of 1975 in the Claims Tribunal at Jamnagar. All of them contended in their Claim Applications that the driver of the public carrier was solely responsible for the accident. They therefore claimed compensation from the driver owner and insurer of the said public carrier. At the same time the Company as the owner of the car and its insurer were impleaded as parties to the Claim Applications filed by the legal representatives of Mr. Shroff and Mr. Pujari. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of want of care and caution on the part of the driver of the public carrier. It therefore held the driver owner and insurer of the said public carrier liable in damages to the legal representatives of the three victims of the accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 36 400 with six per cent interest from the date of the Claim Application and proportionate costs to the legal representatives or dependents of the deceased driver Bhupatsing. It awarded a sum of Rs. 2 20 0 with six per cent interest from the date of the Claim Application and proportionate costs to the legal representatives of the deceased D. G. Pujari. To the widow and son of deceased H. P. Shroff the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2 45 0 with six per cent interest from the date of the Claim Application and proportionate costs. The owner and the insurer of the offending public carrier feeling aggrieved by the awards made by the Claims Tribunal in the aforesaid three Claim Applications have preferred the present three appeals. ... ... ... ... ...

(3.) That takes us to the question of general importance which was ably presented to us by Mr. Shah the learned advocate for the appellants. The question which he posed for our consideration was: whether in assessing damages payable under the Fatal Accidents Act to the dependants or legal representatives of the deceased must there be deducted therefrom any pecuniary benefit that such dependents or legal representatives may have received under any life insurance policy or accident benefit policy taken out by the deceased ? Precisely stated the submission is two-fold: (i) the benefit of accelerated payment received by the legal representatives of the deceased under a life insurance policy taken out by the deceased was liable to be deducted from the total amount of compensation payable under the Fatal Accidents Act; and (ii) the accident insurance money received by the legal representatives of the deceased must be deducted in its entirety from the compensation money and the surplus If any could only be awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased.