1977 (2) TMI 132 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rash and negligent driving leading to fatal motor accidents.
2. Determination of compensation by Claims Tribunal.
3. Joint and several liabilities of multiple parties.
4. Adequacy of compensation awarded.
5. Limitation of liability of Insurance Companies under Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. Legislative inadequacies in providing adequate compensation for motor accident victims.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rash and negligent driving leading to fatal motor accidents:
The judgment begins by highlighting the increase in motor accidents due to rash and negligent driving, which results in the loss of many lives. The court emphasizes the need for laws and statutes to minimize such accidents and provide adequate compensation to the victims' families. The court also mentions the need for serious consideration of creating non-fault liability, given the socio-economic problems faced by the victims' families.

2. Determination of compensation by Claims Tribunal:
The case involves two claims filed by the appellants for compensation due to the deaths of their husbands in a motor accident. The Claims Tribunal decreed the claim of one appellant to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- and the other to Rs. 40,000/-. The court notes that the Claims Tribunal and the High Court overlooked important factors while determining the compensation, such as the potential future earnings and pensionary benefits of the deceased.

3. Joint and several liabilities of multiple parties:
The court discusses the appeals filed by various parties against the decision of the Claims Tribunal and the High Court. It is noted that the High Court made the appellant Gupta and Bhuta jointly and severally liable, which the Supreme Court agrees with. The court emphasizes that the pleadings should be interpreted with latitude, considering the low legal literacy of poor people.

4. Adequacy of compensation awarded:
The court finds that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was grossly inadequate. The court recalculates the compensation, taking into account the future earnings and pensionary benefits of the deceased, and determines that the appellant Raha was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The court criticizes the lower courts for not considering these important factors.

5. Limitation of liability of Insurance Companies under Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act:
The court points out the inadequacy of Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which limits the liability of Insurance Companies to Rs. 2,000/- in case of third-party deaths. The court finds this limitation to be unreasonable and urges the legislature to amend the law to provide for adequate compensation through Insurance Companies.

6. Legislative inadequacies in providing adequate compensation for motor accident victims:
The court criticizes the legislature for not addressing the need for adequate compensation for motor accident victims. The court highlights the disparity in compensation awarded to victims of plane accidents versus motor vehicle accidents and calls for a more humane and practical approach in passing statutes like the Motor Vehicles Act. The court hopes that the legislature will take note of these observations and amend the law accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismisses Civil Appeals Nos. 1826 of 1968 and 132 of 1969 and allows Civil Appeal No. 2310 of 1968 to the extent that the claim preferred by Raha is enhanced from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The decree will be jointly and severally recoverable from Gupta and Bhuta, subject to any proof of full and final settlement. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court.