Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. Vs. Alexix Sonier & Anr.
|
Head Note
Motor Vehicles Act,1988 - Section 166
Compensation - Claimant had not claimed any amount in US dollars in the claim petition and the entire claim was in the Indian currency - Amount awarded by the Tribunal in respect of some of the items under head 'Special Damages' has been given in terms of US dollars and the exchange rate has been applied at the rate of 14 per US dollar -Held that where the prayer for passing a decree is indicated in rupees, there would not be any dispute regarding what rate of conversion to be applied.
Motor Vehicles Act,1988 - Section 166
Compensation - Contributory Negligence - Plea the accident in question was a result of contributory negligence repelled -Driver of the bus had denied that any accident - Site plan which has been taken into consideration by the High Court, shows that the bus was driven at a sufficiently high speed and skid marks of the tyres of bus are about 32 ft. in length which were because of the speed of bus - High Court has, therefore, correctly held that the bus was driven rashly and negligently and at a very fast speed - Question of accident being a result of contributory negligence does not arise.
Motor Vehicles Act,1988 - Section 166
Compensation - Injury Case - Cost to keep attendant for life - Held that where any claim is made towards cost of attendant from the date of accident till he remains alive and it is also proved, then that claim is justified - Claimant held entitled for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs plus interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the date of actual payment towards expenses to be incurred for keeping an attendant for the rest of his life to look after him.
Motor Vehicles Act,1988 - Section 166
New Plea - Estoppel - Plea taken by the Corporation that the statement of the persons recorded by the court appointed Commissioner, who were not named in the order dated 11.07.2023 cannot be taken on record - Though the Commissioner has recorded evidence of persons viz., AW-10A to AW-19 except AW-18 who were not named in the order dated 11.07.1990, yet, when the Commissioner filed the report along with the evidence so recorded, a specific question was put to the counsel of the Corporation as to whether he has any objection but he did not raise any objection - Held that it is not now open for the Corporation to raise this plea.
Topic(s)-MACT - Contributory Negligence - No