<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> has enhanced compensation in a road accident case, saying merely because a person attempted to overtake a vehicle, it cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence.</p><p>A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol revised the compensation to the sum of Rs 11.25 lakh as against Rs 1,01,250 awarded to the appellant Prem Lal Anand and others by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.</p>.Perquisites, allowances to be computed in salary in determining compensation in road mishap cases: Supreme Court .<p>"Not only was the claimant-appellant, Prem Lal Anand doing an act which is an everyday occurrence on the road that is overtaking a vehicle, but resultantly suffered extensive injuries himself. That apart, it has also been proved that the offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. These two factors taken together lead us to the conclusion that the finding of contributory negligence against the appellant was erroneous and unjustified," the bench said.</p><p>In the case, the compensation got truncated, as the tribunal recorded the finding of contributory negligence.</p><p>The tribunal said that the responsibility for the accident could be apportioned to both the claimant-appellants and the respondent at 50 per cent each.</p><p>The claimant, along with his wife aged about 45 years, were travelling by motorcycle and as they were crossing village Mehrauli, on their way to Noida to visit a friend, they were faced with two rashly and speedily driven tractors resulting into an accident.</p><p>Unfortunately, claimant's wife died on the spot, as a result of the impact of the accident. He also sustained several injuries, including a broken jaw and fractures in his leg. </p><p>The couple were engaged in business jointly earning Rs 5,000 from their business concern, namely, M/s Sonali Fabrics. It was contended that due to the sudden death of the wife of the deceased, the entire business, which was earning profits, for example, Rs 60,000 in the year 1994 and Rsb50,000 in 1993, the income therefrom was lost.</p><p>Hence, the claimants, being legal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim for Rs 12,00,000 before the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.</p><p>Going by the facts of the case, the court noted the driver of one tractor maintained slow speed, prompting the claimant to overtake, but, however, the driver of the another tractor was rash and negligent in his act. Not only did he overspeed, but also came from the wrong side, resulting in the collusion. </p><p>"In the attending facts and circumstances, merely because a person was attempting to overtake a vehicle, cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence with nothing to the contrary suggested from the record," the bench said.</p><p>Further, the court noted, it is the claimant-appellants who lost a member of their family.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> has enhanced compensation in a road accident case, saying merely because a person attempted to overtake a vehicle, it cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence.</p><p>A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol revised the compensation to the sum of Rs 11.25 lakh as against Rs 1,01,250 awarded to the appellant Prem Lal Anand and others by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.</p>.Perquisites, allowances to be computed in salary in determining compensation in road mishap cases: Supreme Court .<p>"Not only was the claimant-appellant, Prem Lal Anand doing an act which is an everyday occurrence on the road that is overtaking a vehicle, but resultantly suffered extensive injuries himself. That apart, it has also been proved that the offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. These two factors taken together lead us to the conclusion that the finding of contributory negligence against the appellant was erroneous and unjustified," the bench said.</p><p>In the case, the compensation got truncated, as the tribunal recorded the finding of contributory negligence.</p><p>The tribunal said that the responsibility for the accident could be apportioned to both the claimant-appellants and the respondent at 50 per cent each.</p><p>The claimant, along with his wife aged about 45 years, were travelling by motorcycle and as they were crossing village Mehrauli, on their way to Noida to visit a friend, they were faced with two rashly and speedily driven tractors resulting into an accident.</p><p>Unfortunately, claimant's wife died on the spot, as a result of the impact of the accident. He also sustained several injuries, including a broken jaw and fractures in his leg. </p><p>The couple were engaged in business jointly earning Rs 5,000 from their business concern, namely, M/s Sonali Fabrics. It was contended that due to the sudden death of the wife of the deceased, the entire business, which was earning profits, for example, Rs 60,000 in the year 1994 and Rsb50,000 in 1993, the income therefrom was lost.</p><p>Hence, the claimants, being legal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim for Rs 12,00,000 before the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.</p><p>Going by the facts of the case, the court noted the driver of one tractor maintained slow speed, prompting the claimant to overtake, but, however, the driver of the another tractor was rash and negligent in his act. Not only did he overspeed, but also came from the wrong side, resulting in the collusion. </p><p>"In the attending facts and circumstances, merely because a person was attempting to overtake a vehicle, cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence with nothing to the contrary suggested from the record," the bench said.</p><p>Further, the court noted, it is the claimant-appellants who lost a member of their family.</p>
