# Smt. Ghyanti & Anr v. H.D.F.C. General Insurance Company Ltd. Kanat Place, New Delhi & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 285
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-09
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 276 of 2013
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ghyanti-anr-v-h-d-f-c-general-insurance-company-ltd-kanat-place-new-delhi-48513
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Sri Pranjal Mehrotra

A. Motor Accident Claim - Compensation -
Term 'Negligence' - Meaning - Negligence
means failure to exercise required degree
of care expected of a prudent driver.
Negligence
is
the
omission
to
do
something
which
a
reasonable
man,
guided upon the considerations, which
ordinarily regulate conduct of human
affairs, would do, or doing something
which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do. Negligence is not always a
question of direct evidence, it is an
inference to be drawn from proved facts.
Negligence is not an absolute term, but is
a relative one, it is rather a comparative
term. (Para 6)

B. Motor Accident Cases - Hit and run
cases - Frequent use of vehicle on road -
Principle of liability - Rule of res-ipsa
loquitor - Applicability - Held, in view of
the fast and constantly increasing volume
of traffic, motor vehicles upon roads may
be regarded, to some extent, as coming
within the principle of liability defined in
Rylands's case - 'Hit and run' cases where
drivers of motor vehicles who have caused
accidents, are unknown - Court cannot
dispense
with
proof
of
negligence
altogether in all cases of motor vehicle
accidents, it is possible to develop the law
further on the following lines; when a
motor
vehicle
is
being
driven
with
reasonable care, it would ordinarily not
meet with an accident and, therefore, rule
of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence
may be invoked in motor accident cases
with greater frequency than in ordinary
civil suits. (Para 9 and 10)

C. Motor Accident Claim - Cause of
accident - Reasonable care - Burden of
proof, on whom lie - Held, the burden of
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proof would ordinarily be cast on the
defendants in a motor accident claim
petition to prove that motor vehicle driven
by the driver was being driven with
reasonable care or it is proved that there
is equal negligence on the part the other
side in causing the accident - As far as
beneficial
piece
of
legislation
is
concerned,
the
strict
rules
of
Civil
Procedure Code and Evidence Act are no
required to adhered to. (Para 12 and 19)
D. Motor Accident claim - Contributory
compensation - In accident, truck driver
dashed the motorcyclist from behind -
Tribunal held that both drivers have
equally contributed to the accident -
Validity challenged - Held, the driver of
the truck to be 80% negligent, the reason
being he is not stepped into the witness
box. The vehicle while taking a turn
whether the indicators were on the
evidence is to the contrary as given by the
witnesses for the claimants. However,
considering
the
facts
that
accident
occurred in the cross turning whether held
the deceased 20% negligence - High
Court re-computed compensation. (Para
13 and 15)

E. Civil Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Section 194A (3) (ix) - Withdraw of
amount of interest - Certificate of
Income Tax authority, when required -
Held, if the interest payable to any
claimant for any financial year exceeds
Rs.
50,000/-,
insurance
Co./owner
is/are entitled to deduct appropriate
amount under the head of 'Tax Deducted
at Source' as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - If the
amount of interest does not exceeds Rs.
50,000/- in any financial year, registry
of this Tribunal is directed to allow the
claimants
to
withdraw
the
amount
without producing the certificate from
the concerned Income- Tax Authority.
(Para 23)
Appeal partly allowed (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

5 All. Smt. Ghyanti & Anr. Vs. H.D.F.C. General Insurance Company Ltd. Kanat Place, New
 Delhi & Anr.
285

20. As per the legal propositions
mentioned above and keeping in view this
fact that undisputedly the revisionist is the
registered owner of the seized vehicle and
the ownership of the vehicle is not in
dispute, neither the State or any other
person has claimed their ownership over
the vehicle, therefore, no useful purpose
will be served in keeping the vehicle
stationed at the police station in the open
yard for a long period allowing it to be
damaged with the passage of time.

21. In view of the above facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eyes of law
and require interference by this court.

22. Accordingly, the criminal revision
is allowed and the impugned order dated
30.10.2021 passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandauli is set aside and the
case is remitted back to the concerned court
to pass a fresh speaking and reasoned order
keeping in view of the settled law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, AIR 2003
SC 638 within a period of two months from
the date of production of certified copy of
this order in accordance with law.
----------
(2022)05ILR A285
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 276 of 2013

Smt. Ghyanti & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
H.D.F.C. General Insurance Company Ltd.
Kanat Place, New Delhi & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Singh, Sri Daya Ram Yadav

Counsel for the Resondents:
Sri Pranjal Mehrotra

A. Motor Accident Claim - Compensation -
Term 'Negligence' - Meaning - Negligence
means failure to exercise required degree
of care expected of a prudent driver.
Negligence
is
the
omission
to
do
something
which
a
reasonable
man,
guided upon the considerations, which
ordinarily regulate conduct of human
affairs, would do, or doing something
which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do. Negligence is not always a
question of direct evidence, it is an
inference to be drawn from proved facts.
Negligence is not an absolute term, but is
a relative one, it is rather a comparative
term. (Para 6)

B. Motor Accident Cases - Hit and run
cases - Frequent use of vehicle on road -
Principle of liability - Rule of res-ipsa
loquitor - Applicability - Held, in view of
the fast and constantly increasing volume
of traffic, motor vehicles upon roads may
be regarded, to some extent, as coming
within the principle of liability defined in
Rylands's case - 'Hit and run' cases where
drivers of motor vehicles who have caused
accidents, are unknown - Court cannot
dispense
with
proof
of
negligence
altogether in all cases of motor vehicle
accidents, it is possible to develop the law
further on the following lines; when a
motor
vehicle
is
being
driven
with
reasonable care, it would ordinarily not
meet with an accident and, therefore, rule
of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence
may be invoked in motor accident cases
with greater frequency than in ordinary
civil suits. (Para 9 and 10)

C. Motor Accident Claim - Cause of
accident - Reasonable care - Burden of
proof, on whom lie - Held, the burden of
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proof would ordinarily be cast on the
defendants in a motor accident claim
petition to prove that motor vehicle driven
by the driver was being driven with
reasonable care or it is proved that there
is equal negligence on the part the other
side in causing the accident - As far as
beneficial
piece
of
legislation
is
concerned,
the
strict
rules
of
Civil
Procedure Code and Evidence Act are no
required to adhered to. (Para 12 and 19)
D. Motor Accident claim - Contributory
compensation - In accident, truck driver
dashed the motorcyclist from behind -
Tribunal held that both drivers have
equally contributed to the accident -
Validity challenged - Held, the driver of
the truck to be 80% negligent, the reason
being he is not stepped into the witness
box. The vehicle while taking a turn
whether the indicators were on the
evidence is to the contrary as given by the
witnesses for the claimants. However,
considering
the
facts
that
accident
occurred in the cross turning whether held
the deceased 20% negligence - High
Court re-computed compensation. (Para
13 and 15)

E. Civil Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Section 194A (3) (ix) - Withdraw of
amount of interest - Certificate of
Income Tax authority, when required -
Held, if the interest payable to any
claimant for any financial year exceeds
Rs.
50,000/-,
insurance
Co./owner
is/are entitled to deduct appropriate
amount under the head of 'Tax Deducted
at Source' as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - If the
amount of interest does not exceeds Rs.
50,000/- in any financial year, registry
of this Tribunal is directed to allow the
claimants
to
withdraw
the
amount
without producing the certificate from
the concerned Income- Tax Authority.
(Para 23)
Appeal partly allowed (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Rylands Vs Fletcher; (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330
2. Jacob Mathew Vs St. of Pun.; 2005 0 ACJ(SC)
1840
3. Archit Saini & anr. Vs Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 1143.
4. F.A.F.O. No.16 of 2001 United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., Gorakhpur Vs Smt. Neera
Singh & ors.
5. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050
6. United India, Insurance Co. Ltd. Gorakhpur
Vs Smt. Neeraj Singh & ors., 2017 (1) AWC 636.
7. Saead Bashir Ahmad Vs Md. Zamil 2009 (1)
TAC 794
8. Vimla Devi & ors. Vs National Insurance Co.
Ltd. & anr.; (2019) 2 SCC 186
9. Anita Sharma Vs New India Assurance Co.
Ltd.; (2021) 1 SCC 171
10. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishore Dan & ors.
AIR 2013 SC 3830
11. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corp.;
(2009) 6 SCC 121
12. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2007(2) GLH 291
13. Review Application No. 1 of 2020 in First
Appeal From Order No. 23 of 2001; Smt.
Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.
14. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned
counsel for the appellants; Shri Pranjal
Mehrotra,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent; and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
award dated 20.10.2012 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge,
Court
No.6,
Ghaziabad
(hereinafter
5 All. Smt. Ghyanti & Anr. Vs. H.D.F.C. General Insurance Company Ltd. Kanat Place, New
 Delhi & Anr.
287
referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.322 of 2011 awarding a
sum of Rs.4,95,200/- with interest at the
rate of 7% as compensation.

3. The accident and involvement of
vehicle are not in dispute. The accidental
injuries caused death is also not in dispute.
The issue of negligence decided by the
Tribunal is in dispute. The respondent
concerned has not challenged the liability
imposed on them. The issues to be decided
are negligence and the quantum of
compensation awarded. The judgment is
therefore not stuffed with narration of all
facts except for deciding negligence and
compensation.

4. We are unable to subscribe to the
submission of Shri Ram Singh, learned
counsel for appellants that the the deceased
has not contributed to the accident on our
reasonings given later on.

5. In view of the submission made by
both the counsels as far as negligence is
concerned this court will have to decide the
issue of negligence. It would be relevant to
discuss
the
principles
for
deciding
negligence and to decide whether it is a
case of composite / contributory negligence
which will also have to be looked into and
the principles enunciated for considering
the same in a motor accident claim will be
sifted and discussed finding on negligence.

6. Negligence means failure to
exercise required degree of care expected
of a prudent driver. Negligence is the
omission to do something which a
reasonable
man,
guided
upon
the
considerations, which ordinarily regulate
conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. Negligence
is not always a question of direct evidence,
it is an inference to be drawn from proved
facts. Negligence is not an absolute term,
but is a relative one, it is rather a
comparative term. What may be negligence
in one case may not be so in another.
Where there is no duty to exercise care,
negligence in the popular sense has no legal
consequence. Where there is a duty to
exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen and likely to
cause physical injury to person. The degree
of care required, of course, depends upon
facts in each case. On these broad
principles, the negligence of drivers is
required to be assessed.

7. It would be seen that burden of
proof for contributory negligence on the
part of deceased has to be discharged by the
opponents. It is the duty of driver of the
offending vehicle to explain the accident. It
is well settled law it is the duty of a fast
moving vehicle to slow down and if driver
did not slow down at, but continued to
proceed at a high speed without caring to
notice that another vehicle was either or
going ahead crossing, then the conduct of
driver necessarily leads to conclusion that
vehicle was being driven by him rashly as
well as negligently and the driver can be
held to be the author of the unforseen
incident.

8. 10th Schedule appended to Motor
Vehicle
Act,1988
contains
statutory
regulations for driving of motor vehicles
which also form part of every Driving
License. Clause-6 of such Regulation
clearly directs that the driver of every
motor vehicle must slow down vehicle at
every intersection or junction of roads or at
a turning of the road. It is also provided
that driver of the vehicle should not enter
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
intersection or junction of roads unless he
makes sure that he would not thereby
endanger any other person. Merely, because
driver of the Truck was driving vehicle on
the left side of road would not absolve him
from his responsibility to slow down
vehicle as he approaches tries to overtake
of the vehicle on road, particularly when he
could have easily seen, that the vehicle in
or over which deceased was riding, was
being played.

9. In view of the fast and constantly
increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles
upon roads may be regarded to some extent
as coming within the principle of liability
defined in Rylands V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3
HL (LR) 330, from the point of view of
pedestrian, the roads of this country have
been rendered by the use of motor vehicles,
highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases where
drivers of motor vehicles who have caused
accidents, are unknown.

10. In the light of the above
discussion, even if courts may not by
interpretation displace the principles of law
which are considered to be well settled and,
therefore, court cannot dispense with proof
of negligence altogether in all cases of
motor vehicle accidents, it is possible to
develop the law further on the following
lines; when a motor vehicle is being driven
with reasonable care, it would ordinarily
not meet with an accident and, therefore,
rule of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of
evidence may be invoked in motor accident
cases with greater frequency than in
ordinary civil suits (refer Jacob Mathew
V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0 ACJ(SC)
1840).

11. The negligent act must contribute
to the accident having taken place. The
Apex Court recently has considered the
principles of negligence in case of Archit
Saini and Another v. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, AIR 2018 SC 1143.

12. The burden of proof would
ordinarily be cast on the defendants in a
motor accident claim petition to prove that
motor vehicle driven by the driver was
being driven with reasonable care or it is
proved that there is equal negligence on the
part the other side in causing the accident.

13. The driver of both the vehicles
have been held to be negligent by the
tribunal and the tribunal has held that both
drivers have equally contributed to the
accident having taken place. The fact that
the truck hit the vehicle in which the
deceased was traveling from behind, is an
admitted position of fact that the truck hit
the motorcyclist from behind.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant
has relied on the decision of this Court in
F.A.F.O. No.16 of 2001 United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., Gorakhpur v. Smt.
Neera Singh and others.

15. The reasonings given for holding
the
driver
of
the
motorcycle
50%
negligence, when a driver driving bigger
vehicle has to be more cautious. The driver
of the truck even events of the site plan that
the truck driver tried to take a turn, the
motorcyclist also tried to take turn that is
how the truck driver dashed with the
motorcyclist. It is an admitted position of
fact that the truck driver dashed the
motorcycle from behind even as per the site
plan, the documentary evidence goes to
show that the accident occurred and died at
7 p.m.. We, therefore, held the driver of the
truck to be 80% negligent, the reason being
he is not stepped into the witness box. The
vehicle while taking a turn whether the
5 All. Smt. Ghyanti & Anr. Vs. H.D.F.C. General Insurance Company Ltd. Kanat Place, New
 Delhi & Anr.
289
indicators were on the evidence is to the
contrary as given by the witnesses for the
claimants. However, considering the facts
that accident occurred in the cross turning
whether held the deceased 20% negligence.

Compensation

16. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellants that the Tribunal has not
granted any amount towards future loss of
income of the deceased which is required to
be granted in view of the decision in
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted
that amount under non-pecuniary heads
granted and the interest awarded by the
Tribunal are on the lower side and require
enhancement.
Learned
counsel
for
appellants/claimants
submitted
that
deceased was Labour Supply Contractor by
profession and was earning Rs.9000/- per
month. It is also submitted by learned
counsel for appellants that as the deceased
was survived by his wife and major son and
hence the deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased as 1/3 is not
disputed by appellants. The multiplier has
to be as per age of deceased and tribunal
has granted multiplier of 11 which is not
disputed by either side. The tribunal has not
assessed the future prospects loss of
income, it is submitted that should be 25%
instead of 20% as per decision of Pranay
Sethi (supra) and U.P. M.V. Rules, 2011.
Learned counsel for the appellants has
relied on the judgment of the Apex Court
titled United India, Insurance Co. Ltd.
Gorakhpur v. Smt. Neeraj Singh and
others, 2017 (1) AWC 636.

17.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents, has vehemently submitted that
the contentions raised by the learned
counsel
for
the
appellants
are
unsubstantiated,
learned
counsel
has
submitted that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is just and proper and does
not call for any enhancement. It is further
submitted that the accident and decision of
tribunal is based on the decision of Sarla
Verma (Supra) where it is held further loss
of income can't be granted to a person who
is self employed. The deduction is just and
proper as deceased is considered to have
equally contributed in causing the accident.

18. Having heard learned counsels for
the parties and considered the factual data,
this Court finds that the accident occurred
on 11.04.2011 causing death of Prabhu
Nath Singh who was 50 years of age and
left behind him, wife and a major son. The
Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased to be Rs.9000/- per month. The
deceased was Labour Supply Contractor by
profession. The Tribunal has relied on the
judgment of Saead Bashir Ahmad v. Md.
Zamil 2009 (1) TAC 794 and decided that
the deceased was earning Rs.9000/- p.m..
The evidence of the witnesses has not been
accepted. The Apex Court in Vimla Devi
and
others
Vs.
National
Insurance
Company Limited and another, (2019) 2
SCC 186, has held strict rules of Civil
Procedure may not be applied. The
deceased died due to the accidental injuries
is not in dispute. The judgment of the Apex
Court in Anita Sharma v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021), 1 SCC 171
would also apply to the facts of this case.

19. As far as beneficial piece of
legislation is concerned, the strict rules of
Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act are
no required to adhered to.

20. In view of the judgment of Vimal
Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
others, AIR 2013 SC 3830 except income
Tax, if payable, no amount could have been
deducted by the tribunal in the year of
question, i.e., 2011, the income of deceased
was below taxable income. The income of
Rs.9000/- per month of the deceased as
considered by tribunal is maintained. The
deceased was in age bracket of 40 - 50
years as Labour supply contractor in light
of Pranay Sethi (Supra) 25% of the income
will have to be added as future prospects in
view of the decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050.

21. In this backdrop we evaluate the
compensation in view of the judgment of
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050 and Sarla Verma Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6
SCC 121 and, the recalculation of
compensation would be as follows:

i. Income Rs.9000/- p.m.

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 25% namely Rs.2250/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 9000 +
2250= Rs.11,250/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 :
Rs.7500/-

v. Annual income : Rs.7500 x 12
= Rs.90,000/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 11 (as
the deceased was in the age bracket of 5155 years)

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.90000 x 11 = Rs.9,90,000/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads (Rs.70,000+30,000) = 1,00,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.10,90,000/-.

x. Amount admissible to the
Claimants after deduction of negligence to
the tune of 20% on the part of the deceased
= Rs.8,72,000/-

22. On depositing the amount in the
Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to
first deduct the amount of deficit court fees,
if any. Considering the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V.
Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH 6 (SC), 442, the order of
investment is not passed because applicants
/claimants are neither illiterate or rustic
villagers.

23. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagauri P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291, total
amount of interest, accrued on the principal
amount
of
compensation
is
to
be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis and if the interest payable to
claimant for any financial year exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
insurance
company/owner
is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount
under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source'
as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest
does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any
financial year, registry of this Tribunal is
directed to allow the claimant to withdraw
the
amount
without
producing
the
certificate from the concerned Income- Tax
Authority. The aforesaid view has been
reiterated by this High Court in Review
Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna
and others Vs. Hari Singh and another)
while disbursing the amount.

24.

Fresh
Award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein. The Tribunals in the State shall
5 All. Ompal Singh Sharma & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
291
follow the direction of this Court as herein
aforementioned as far as disbursement is
concerned, it should look into the condition
of the litigant and the pendency of the
matter and not blindly apply the judgment
of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be
applied looking to the facts of each case.

25. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the
latest decision of the Apex Court in National
7 Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal
and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)
wherein the Apex Court has held as under :

"13. The aforesaid features equally
apply to the contentions urged on behalf of
the claimants as regards the rate of interest.
The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate
of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a
rate in comparison to what is ordinarily
envisaged in these matters. The High Court,
after making a substantial enhancement in
the award amount, modified the interest
component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a.
and we find no reason to allow the interest in
this matter at any rate higher than that
allowed by High Court."

26. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed
by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the
aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance
Company shall deposit the amount along
with additional amount within a period of 12
weeks from today with interest at the rate of
7.5% from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the amount is deposited. The
amount already deposited be deducted from
the amount to be deposited.

27. We are thankful to learned
counsels for the parties for ably assisted the
Court.

28. Record be sent back to court
below forthwith, if any.
----------
(2022)05ILR A291
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 311 of 2022

Ompal Singh Sharma & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Bhaskar

Counsel for the Resondents:
Sri Krishna Shanker Chaudhary

A. Motor Accident Claim - Act of God or vis
major - Meaning - Rylands' rule -
Applicability - Coming of blue bull on the
road before a vehicle, Trubunal held it as
an Act of God - Validity challenged - Held,
only those acts, which can be traced to
natural forces and which have nothing to
do with the intervention of human agency,
can be said to be Acts of God - Act of God
or vis major are the forces which no
human foresight can provide most and of
which human prudence is not bound to
recognize the possibility - Held further, if
the driver of the vehicle would have taken
proper care and caution while plying the
vehicle at normal speed, the accident
could have been avoided because it is not
the case that the car hit the blue bull
directly but in order to save the blue bull,
it rammed into a tree and overturn in a
ditch - High Court applied Rylands' rule
and declared the finding of the Tribunal
holding the accident to be the result of 'No