ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. VERDA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is heard along with S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 437 of 1993, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 452 of 1993, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Verda Ram and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 459 of 1993, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla. With the consent of the advocates appearing for the parties common judgment is delivered in all these appeals as the questions involved are interlinked and are in regard to one accident. In an accident two passengers of jeep, Chhagan Lal and Babu Lal, have died. Chhagan Lal's dependants, Verda Ram, father; Hemi Bai, mother; Lila, widow and Lata, daughter, have filed a claim petition No. 42 of 1988 and claim petition No. 47 of 1988 was filed by Babu Lal's dependants, Kamla Bai, widow; Tiji Bai, mother; Balkishan, Raju, Chetan, sons and Meena, daughter, against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which is the insurer of jeep No. RRT 7286 and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which is the insurer of truck No. RJW 3329 and Mangubai, the owner of the jeep, Nijammudin, driver of the jeep and Jeevan Ram, owner of the truck and Shanti Lal, driver of the truck. The Misc. Appeal No. 452 of 1993 and Misc. Appeal No. 437 of 1993 are filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. challenging the extent of the liability imposed over insurance company and the Misc. Appeal No. 460 of 1993 and Misc. Appeal No. 459 of 1993 are filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and by the owner challenging entire award passed by the Claims Tribunal in two claim petitions, (i) in claim case No. 42 of 1988 and (ii) in claim case No. 47 of 1988. In claim case No. 42 of 1988, filed by the dependants of Chhagan Lal, the Tribunal has awarded compensation taking dependency of Rs. 1,800/ - per month and applying the multiplier of 30. The award was made for Rs. 6,48,000/ - and Rs. 14,000/ - for loss of love and affection, total Rs. 6,62,000/ - with 12 per cent interest from the date of application till realisation. In claim case No. 47 of 1988 filed by Babu Lal's dependants, the Tribunal has held that at the time of the death of Babu Lal, his age was 45. His salary was Rs. 5,600/ - and dependency of the claimants was Rs. 2,000/ -per month. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal was 15 and the claimants were awarded Rs. 3,60,000/ - and Rs. 20,000/ - for loss of consortium and for loss of love and affection, total Rs. 3,80,000/ -. In both the claim petitions, the apportionment of the liability was made on truck 75 per cent and on jeep 25 per cent. As regards the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., its plea for statutory liability of Rs. 15,000/ -per passenger only was rejected. It is held that the insurance company's liability is unlimited. On these findings it has been held that the respective insurance companies along with the owners of the vehicles and the drivers are jointly and severally responsible for payment of the compensation.

(2.) FACTS in brief are that Chhagan Lal, aged about 28 years and Babu Lal, aged about 45 years, died in an unfortuante motor accident that occurred on 21.2.1988 at 5.30 a.m., near village Veerwara in Sirohi District, involving a jeep No. RRT 7286 and truck No. RJW 3329. The deceased Chhagan Lal was engaged at the relevant time as daily collection agent of the bank and as an agent of L.I.C. and was earning about Rs. 2,700/ -per month and Babu Lal was engaged as the Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation and was drawing the salary of Rs. 5,600/ -. The facts emerged from the evidence of the witnesses, Mana Ram AW 3, Nijammudin, NAW 3, Exhs. A -6 and AW 7, spot inspection note and Exhs. A -l, A -2, photographs, which is not seriously challenged by the appellants and found by the Tribunal are that Chhagan Lal and Babu Lal were travelling in a jeep. The truck No. RJW 3329 was standing on jackknife on the road on account of the breakdown, covering about 6 feet of the tar road, which has a breadth of 24 feet. The truck was put on a jack removing the back wheels. The truck was standing for 12 hours on that position. There were no tail -lights, nor the stones were put around the truck to indicate that the truck is stationary. The jeep has not dashed the standing truck from rear, but backside of the jeep brushed backside of the standing truck while passing. The truck was put only on jack, which slipped, truck tilted and fell on the passing jeep. It has come in evidence that when jeep reached near the place of incidence, driver of the jeep spotted incoming vehicle from opposite direction and to avoid a head -on collision, he tried to squeeze through the road available and in the process back portion of the jeep hit the back portion of the standing truck. The truck was not put stationary on solid support after removal of back wheels.

(3.) IN apportioning the blame, the court should take into consideration the respective blame of the parties as also consentient potency of their acts or omissions. In case where the negligence of both the parties contributes to the damage, the court can apportion the fault between the parties contributing the damage. The standard of reasonable man is a relevant factor in case of jeep driver's part as much as truck driver's in assessing contributory negligence. In the words of Denning, L.J., 'A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he might hurt himself and in his reckonings, he must take into account the possibility of other being careless.' [Jones v. Livax Quarries Ltd. (1952) 2 QB 608]. But if the safety precautions are prescribed by statutory regulations, the party can assume that regulations have been complied with as held in Westwood v. The Post Office (1973) 3 All ER 184 at page 192. Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, reads as under: Leaving vehicle in dangerous position. - No person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to remain at rest on any road in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to cause or be likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the road. Rule 151 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951, provided that a vehicle shall carry one rear lamp showing red light visible from 500 feet. These statutory provisions have been made for safety of the traffic and their violation endangers the lives as well as the property.