AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Singh, J
The facts and questions of law in all the appeals are common, therefore, all the appeals are taken together and disposed of by this common judgment.
Brief facts of the present case are that on 30.10.2007, Mohd. Shakeer, Mohd. Rafi and Mohd. Arif were going on motor cycle from village Budhanpur to Kashipur. Near the boundary of Nepa Paper Mill, a maruti car bearing registration no. UP 21 J 3607 coming on wrong side hit the bike being driven by Mohd. Rafi. The maruti car was driven by Prem Avatar Sharma rashly and negligently. In the collision, Mohd. Rafi and Mohd. Shakeer received injuries and Mohd. Arif succumbed to his injuries. Mohd. Rafi, Mohd. Shakeer and parents of Mohd. Arif filed claim petitions. Their claim petitions were allowed against the appellant New India Assurance Company insurer of maruti car. Feeling aggrieved, New India Assurance Company approached this Court.
Heard Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate for the claimants and perused the record.
Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company submits that in the present case, there was head on collision between the two vehicles, therefore, it must be a case of contributory negligence and the Tribunal has failed to appreciate evidence on this aspect and held the insurance company solely liable for payment of compensation. He has further submitted that car driver had no valid driving license.
Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate for the claimants has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car driver Prem Avatar Sharma.
Ordinarily, in a case of head-on collision between two vehicles, cause of negligence may be, equally, apportioned. When it becomes difficult to distinguish or separate the extent or degree of negligence, when there is a collision between two vehicles, in absence of any other precise and clear and consistent evidence, the driver of each vehicle, ordinarily will be held, equally, accountable. Nonetheless, when there is contrary evidence on record indicating larger extent of negligence on the part of a driver of a particular vehicle in a given fact situation, apportionment of negligence, accordingly, can be made. In the present case, from the perusal of record, it clearly transpires that appellant insurance company had not produced any witness in order to show that accident occurred due to contributory negligence whereas injured claimants had categorically stated that Prem Avatar driving the car rashly and negligently, coming on the wrong side hit the motor cycle of injured claimants. Paper no. 6 Ga/5 clearly shows that car driver Prem Avatar has valid driving license to drive light motor vehicle.
In view of the above, no interference is called for. Accordingly, all the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Amount deposited by the appellant Insurance Company, adjusting the amount released by this Court, if any, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned for payment to the claimants within two months from today.
Let copy of this judgment be placed in each connected appeal and lower court record be sent back forthwith.