Delhi High Court
Rakesh Passi & Anr. vs Hawa Singh & Ors (Bajaj Allianz ... on 28 August, 2019
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 28.08.2019
+ MAC.APP. 549/2015
RAKESH PASSI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. D. K. Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
HAWA SINGH & ORS (BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD) .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for
Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for
Insurance Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 08.04.2015
passed by the learned MACT in MAC. Petition No. 264/2008 on three
grounds. Firstly, that the multiplier has been wrongly applied; the age of the
deceased was 29 years, therefore, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been
applied instead of 5. Secondly, while computing the compensation under
the head of 'loss of dependency', 40% should have been added towards 'loss
of future prospects'. Lastly, the appellant submits that 50% contributory
negligence apportioned upon the deceased is on the higher side, specially
because the offending truck had stopped in the middle of the busy road, as
has been recorded by the learned MACT in para 17 of the impugned order.
It is contended that because the offending vehicle stopped suddenly in the
fast moving traffic, the deceased possibly had hardly sufficient occasion to
avert the accident; nevertheless he perhaps did attempt to avert the
disastrous accident by turning the car to the left side and in that he may have
gone to the left side of the road, which was meant for the heavy vehicles.
2. The learned MACT has recorded as under:-
"17.........This Tribunal from facts and circumstances,
concludes that the accident had taken place due to application
of sudden brakes by the offending truck going at high speed, in
the middle of the road, thus resulting in the collision with the
Octavia Car coming from behind."
3. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for respondent - insurance
company submits that the photographs itself would show that the Octavia
Car was being driven at a very high speed, which is why the entire front
portion of the car, till its roof has been crushed.
4. The Court has seen the photographs of the accident. The extent of
damage to the car shows that the impact of the car into the truck ahead was
at a rather high and uncontrollable speed.
5. The Octavia Car ought to have been driven at a controllable speed
with adequate distance from the vehicle ahead so as to avoid any accident
which may occur because of sudden stoppage of the vehicle ahead.
However, the accident happened within the city on a busy road where the
vehicles move almost bumper to bumper and on some stretches the speed is
much more. The stoppage of a heavy vehicle like a truck in the middle of
the road, suddenly and without warning, is quite likely to result in a
cascading effect on the traffic behind it. The cause for the accident is
clearly the stoppage of the offending truck.
6. In the circumstances, the contributory negligence apportioned upon
the deceased is reduced to 35%.
7. Let a fresh computation be made by the insurance company within
four weeks of receipt of copy of this order and the requisite amounts,
alongwith interest accrued thereon, be deposited before the learned MACT
for disbursement to the beneficiaries of the Award in terms of the scheme of
disbursement specified therein.
8. The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/-, alongwith interest accrued
thereon, be refunded to the insurance company.
9. The appeal stands disposed-off in terms of the above.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
AUGUST 28, 2019
sb
