AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By means of this appeal, the judgment and order dated 14.10.2015, rendered by the learned Tribunal/Ist Additional District Judge, Haldwani (Nainital) has been assailed. By the impugned judgment, the Court below has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,35,000/- along with 8 per cent simple annual interest with effect from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the actual payment is made.
Facts are that on 9.10.2012, Mr. Deepak Thakur, a youth of 22 years, was travelling from Haldwani to Lalkuan on his motorcycle no. UK04-L-4820. His sister Km. Hema Thakur and her friend Km. Shilpi Chaturvedi were also travelling as pillion riders on such motorcycle. At around 7 PM on that day, a canter truck no. UK04-CA- 3575 was parked in front of Laxmi Narayan Temple on the highway. The map 42GA/3, available in the lower court record, shows that there are few shops on both sides of the road, besides some computer factory on one side of the road. The motorcycle borne youth was dashed from the rear portion of the canter and as a consequence, he was badly injured. Some injures were also caused to the pillion riders and the motorcycle was bitterly smashed.
An FIR was lodged on 10.10.2012 by Mr. Vishwanath Thakur, father of the injured youth, for the offences under Section 338 and 427 IPC. After investigation, the chargesheet was also submitted by the Investigation Officer on 17.12.2012 for such offences against the driver of the canter Mr. Prakash Singh Chimiyal.
The Court is not aware as to what happened about the fate of the trial. However, it has been pleaded in the claim petition that since the parking lights of the canter were not switched on by its driver, hence this happened to be the cause of accident.
Mr. Deepak Thakur remained hospitalised in many medical centres for long duration and ultimately he was declared 75 per cent disabled by a panel of doctors. The certificate bears the counter signature of the Chief Medical Officer, Nainital as well.
Although working of the parking lights of the canter has not been specifically proved or disproved, but even if assuming that such parking lights were not working, the fact remains that Mr. Deepak Thakur certainly must have driving his motorcycle with the headlight of such bike keeping it "on", because it was the time of dusk and the darkness was growing. So, he was not supposed to drive his motorcycle without switching on his own headlight.
It is not the case that the canter was being plied rashly and negligently, which had dashed the motorbike borne youth. But the facts are otherwise that the canter was being kept parked, albeit on the highway, but towards the left side of such highway. So, there was every opportunity available with Mr. Deepak Thakur to drive his bike in such a manner so as to surpass the parked canter slowly with all care.
This unfortunate incident predominantly indicates the fault of Mr. Deepak Thakur himself, even if the version of the petitioner regarding the non-working of the parking lights of the canter is accepted. Mr. Deepak Thakur must have been vigilant enough to avoid this accident because the last opportunity was available with him.
Therefore, I apportion at least 60 per cent contributory negligence to Mr. Deepak Thakur, rather to the insurer of the canter.
The factor cannot be also overlooked that two young ladies were sitting as pillion riders on such motorcycle. So, in such circumstances, it was most desirable on the part of Mr. Deepak Thakur to drive his bike in a reasonable speed keeping ignited the headlight of his motorbike.
Looking to the quantum of compensation under various heads, the Court is not inclined to re-evaluate them de novo, but slash such liability straightway by 60 per cent. Thus, the amount comes to Rs. 7,74,000/-. Mr. Deepak Thakur shall be paid compensation of Rs. 7,74,000/- along with 6 per cent annual simple interest with effect from the date of institution of the claim petition till the actual payment is made. After making the calculations, the amount shall be paid to the claimant and remaining amount shall be returned to the appellant insurance company.
Registry shall remit the compulsory statutory amount along with the interest accrued on it to the Tribunal concerned.
Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent indicated above.
Let the LCR be sent back.