Manish Narayan Vs. Seem BourIn and ors.

Manish Narayan vs Seem BourIn and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jan 13, 2009

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/517552

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/517552
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: M.Y. Eqbal and; Jaya Roy, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 13, 2009
Subject: Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

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

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manish Narayan

Advocate Mr. Shailesh

Respondent

Seem BourIn and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 2009ACJ2271; [2009(2)JCR287(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.order1. this appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle is directed against the judgment and award dated 22nd august, 2007 passed by the motor accident claims tribunal, dhanbad in title (m.v.) suit no. 136 of 2003, whereby a sum of rs. 2,81,500/- has been awarded for the death of the occupant of the scooter namely atul bauri.2. mr. shailesh, learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle, assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that it was a case of contributory negligence, but the tribunal did not consider this aspect of the matter and saddled the entire liability on the appellant.3. from perusal of the record it appears that on the fateful day of accident, the deceased along with one more pillion rider, was sitting on the scooter which was being driven by another person vinod bouri. the said scooter was dashed by the offending vehicle which was a car owned by the appellant. nothing has been brought on record that the person, who was driving the scooter, was holding a valid driving licence. admittedly, driving scooter with two pillion riders is not permissible in law. it can, therefore, be safely concluded that it is a case of contributory negligence.4. in our view, therefore, certain amount must be deducted for the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the other occupants of the scooter. if 30% of the compensation amount is deducted for the contributory negligence, the compensation amount comes to about rs. two lacs. learned counsel appearing for the parties have fairly agreed that a lump sum of rs. two lacs shall be paid by way of compensation to the claimants-respondents.5. for the reasons aforesaid, this appeal' is allowed in part. the appellant is directed to pay a lump sum of rs. two lacs to the respondents-claimants within four weeks from today.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle is directed against the judgment and award dated 22nd August, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) suit No. 136 of 2003, whereby a sum of Rs. 2,81,500/- has been awarded for the death of the occupant of the scooter namely Atul Bauri.

2. Mr. Shailesh, learned Counsel for the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle, assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that it was a case of contributory negligence, but the Tribunal did not consider this aspect of the matter and saddled the entire liability on the appellant.

3. From perusal of the record it appears that on the fateful day of accident, the deceased along with one more pillion rider, was sitting on the Scooter which was being driven by another person Vinod Bouri. The said scooter was dashed by the offending vehicle which was a car owned by the appellant. Nothing has been brought on record that the person, who was driving the scooter, was holding a valid driving licence. Admittedly, driving Scooter with two pillion riders is not permissible in law. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that it is a case of contributory negligence.

4. In our view, therefore, certain amount must be deducted for the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the other occupants of the scooter. If 30% of the compensation amount is deducted for the contributory negligence, the compensation amount comes to about Rs. Two lacs. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties have fairly agreed that a lump sum of Rs. Two lacs shall be paid by way of compensation to the claimants-respondents.

5. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal' is allowed in part. The appellant is directed to pay a lump sum of Rs. Two lacs to the respondents-claimants within four weeks from today.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2009 Same Parties Manish Narayan vs Seem BourIn and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge M.Y. Eqbal and; Jaya Roy, JJ.

Motor Vehicles contributory negligence Driving licence Other person Has been in law