Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – s.166 – Motor Accident claim – Grant of compensation - The victim-deceased was driving motorcycle when a car came from the opposite direction and dashed into the motorcycle of the victim – Victim died and his appellant-wife received injuries – FIR was registered and charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the vehicle – An application u/s. 166 of the 1988 Act was filed for grant of compensation – A total sum of Rs.8,90,000/was assessed as compensation by the Tribunal and it was held that the accident occurred by the car owned by the owner – However, the High Court did not accept the findings that the accident was caused by the car owned by the owner and the negligent driving on the part of the driver – The High Court noticed the fact that neither the owner of the offending car nor the Insurance Company has examined the driver to prove that the offending car was not involved in the accident – Thus, doubting the statement of appellant regarding the accident, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was allowed and the claim petition was dismissed – On appeal, held: Rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application u/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature – The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial – There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of appellant who suffered injuries in the accident – The entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable – Appellants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal before the High Court – Appellants entitled to enhanced compensation – Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred u/Art. 142 of the Constitution, this Court decides to recompute the amount of compensation to be in tune with the Constitution Bench Judgment (National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680: [2017]
13 SCR 100 ) – Hence, the compensation comes out to be Rs. 11,63,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. – Consequently, the order passed by the High Court is set aside - Constitution of India – Art.
142. Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: 1. The rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable. If the daughters of the deceased have not been impleaded as claimants, it is immaterial as the amount of compensation payable by the tortfeasor will not get enhanced because of the daughters being party to the claim application. It is since the daughters are married, the mother has not impleaded, the daughters as the claimants. It is not really of any consequence as held by the High Court. [Paras 10 & 11][1047-A-C]
2. The appellants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal before the High Court. The appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation particularly in respect of future prospects and other damages in terms of the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Article
142 of the Constitution, this Court decides to recompute the amount of compensation to be in tune with the constitution Bench Judgment. The appellant has claimed compensation on account of love and affection as well on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for the children in the calculation given to this Court but in view of three Judge Bench judgment reported as United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur & Ors., the compensation under the head on account of loss of love and affection is not permissible but compensation on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for children is admissible. [Paras 12 & 13][1047-D-H]
3. The evidence of appellant No. 1 on affidavit is that her husband was getting salary of Rs.12,450/- and that he was over
50 years of age. The learned Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- in the absence of proof of salary. Therefore, keeping in view the income and the age and the future prospects, the compensation is assessed as: a) Loss of earnings as Rs.10,12,440; b) Loss of Estate as Rs.15000/-; c) Spousal consortium for wife Rs.40,000/-, Parental consortium for two children Rs.80,000/-; d) Funeral Expenses Rs.15000. Hence, the total compensation comes out to be Rs. 11,63,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. as awarded by Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim application till realization. [Paras 14 & 15][1049E-G; 1050-A]
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 – followed.
United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur & Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.