Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vandana JaIn Vs. Dharmendra Kumar JaIn and ors.

Vandana Jain vs Dharmendra Kumar JaIn and ors.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 04, 2001
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511646

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
M.A. No. 1070 of 1995
Subject
Motor Vehicles
Disposition
Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 1 and 2 have clearly admitted the allegation of the claimant.

Key legal issue
Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition
Appeal allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vandana Jain

Advocate P.C. Jain, Adv.

Respondent

Dharmendra Kumar JaIn and ors.

Advocate A.K. Khaskalam, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In
2002ACJ866

Excerpt

- - 1 and 2 have clearly admitted the allegation of the claimant......hinro-dipar, a truck driven rashly and negligently was seen coming from the opposite side. with a view to avoid dash with the truck the car hit the culvert. as a result of this accident the claimant suffered compound fracture of right femur, fracture of bone in the lower portion of right foot and ankle of right foot. she was admitted in government hospital, satna from 26.2.1993 to 4.3.1993, thereafter taken for treatment to agra. a claim for rs. 3,50,000 has been raised. respondent nos. 1 and 2 have clearly admitted the allegation of the claimant. respondent no. 3 has stated that appellant is a member of the family of the other respondents, therefore, does not come in the category of third party. claims tribunal has come to the conclusion that both the vehicles were jointly responsible for the accident, therefore, the compensation of rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded. since the owner and driver of the truck have not been made party to the case, entitlement of compensation has been confined to rs. 50,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum payable by the respondents. through this appeal, this award has been challenged.3. matter examined, evidence perused. from the evidence it is absolutely clear that there is no negligence on the part of the truck driver and the finding of the tribunal holding it jointly responsible with the other vehicle is not sustainable. it appears that, on seeing the truck coming from the opposite side the driver of the car committed the accident by hitting it against the culvert. as a result of this accident injuries were sustained by the claimant. therefore, it is owner and driver of the car who are responsible for causing the accident and new india assurance co. ltd. is liable to pay the compensation. the claimant suffered serious injuries, mentioned above, in this accident. she remained in hospital for a substantial time. she incurred heavy expenditure on medical treatment, affected her studies and marriage prospects......

Full Judgment

Bhawani Singh, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna, in the Claim Case No. 70 of 1994, decided on 11.7.1995.

2. Vandana Jain (22) was a student of M.A. (English). On 26.2.1993 she was going in the car No. UP 83-3648 towards Secohabad. This car was owned by Vimla Devi Jain, driven by Dharmendra Kumar Jain and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rewa Road, Satna. When the car was passing through village Hinro-dipar, a truck driven rashly and negligently was seen coming from the opposite side. With a view to avoid dash with the truck the car hit the culvert. As a result of this accident the claimant suffered compound fracture of right femur, fracture of bone in the lower portion of right foot and ankle of right foot. She was admitted in Government Hospital, Satna from 26.2.1993 to 4.3.1993, thereafter taken for treatment to Agra. A claim for Rs. 3,50,000 has been raised. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have clearly admitted the allegation of the claimant. Respondent No. 3 has stated that appellant is a member of the family of the other respondents, therefore, does not come in the category of third party. Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that both the vehicles were jointly responsible for the accident, therefore, the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded. Since the owner and driver of the truck have not been made party to the case, entitlement of compensation has been confined to Rs. 50,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum payable by the respondents. Through this appeal, this award has been challenged.

3. Matter examined, evidence perused. From the evidence it is absolutely clear that there is no negligence on the part of the truck driver and the finding of the Tribunal holding it jointly responsible with the other vehicle is not sustainable. It appears that, on seeing the truck coming from the opposite side the driver of the car committed the accident by hitting it against the culvert. As a result of this accident injuries were sustained by the claimant. Therefore, it is owner and driver of the car who are responsible for causing the accident and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is liable to pay the compensation. The claimant suffered serious injuries, mentioned above, in this accident. She remained in hospital for a substantial time. She incurred heavy expenditure on medical treatment, affected her studies and marriage prospects. Voluminous documents/cash memos have been placed on record to prove nature of injuries and expenditure on treatment. Approximately, more than Rs. 50,000 appear to have been spent for this purpose. However, compensation of Rs. 50,000 is awarded towards medical treatment. Claimant underwent serious mental pain and suffering for all the period due to the serious injuries she suffered in the accident. Her studies were affected. She had to remain unmarried for the rest of her life. Therefore, towards the pain and suffering we allow compensation of Rs. 20,000 and for the injuries Rs. 75,000. Therefore, total amount of compensation payable to the claimant is Rs. 1,45,000 minus Rs. 50,000 already awarded by the Tribunal. We enhance the award with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application which shall be paid within two months from the date of the order, by New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rewa Road, Satna. The appeal is, accordingly allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial