Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
s.166 – Motor accident – Resulting in death of one and injury to another person – Two separate claims (one by legal representatives of deceased and another by the injured person) – Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.4,53,000/- to the legal representatives of the deceased and of Rs.1,72,700/- to the injured claimant – Insurance Company filed appeal – High Court enhanced the compensation amount in respect of the deceased and absolved the insurance company from paying the compensation amount fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle – In appeal, claimants sought setting aside the order absolving the insurance company as well as sought enhancement of the compensation amount – Held: Claimants are not entitled to enhancement of compensation as the High Court has granted more than just compensation – However, Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount to the respective claimants, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The legal representatives of the deceased did not file any appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal determining the compensation amount. It is Insurance Company who had challenged the award in favour of the claimants. Nevertheless, the High Court enhanced the compensation amount payable to them by invoking power under Order 41 Rule
33 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.). The Insurance Company has not challenged the said view taken by the High Court as it has already succeeded in getting a finding from the High Court that the liability to pay compensation amount was restricted to that of the owner of the offending vehicle. [Para 11][371-D-F]
1.2 The Tribunal had found that no evidence regarding the income of the deceased was produced by the claimants. That finding has not been over-turned by the High Court. The High Court, however, relied upon the driving licence and training certificate of the deceased and on that basis, determined the notional income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.10,000/- per month. Neither the driving licence nor the certificate could per se be made the basis to assume or infer that the deceased was gainfully employed at the relevant time and moreso was earning income of Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus, the reason assigned by the High Court for enhancing the notional income of the deceased from Rs. 3000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month is irrational and tenuous. No tangible logic has been assigned to discard the just finding recorded by the Tribunal in the backdrop of lack of evidence regarding the monthly income of the deceased. [Para 13][372-A-C]
1.3 The High Court has already granted more than just compensation amount to the legal representatives of the deceased. In that, even if the claim of the appellants regarding future prospects, additional medical expenses and additional interest amount was to be accepted, on the basis of the notional income of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month, the question of awarding additional or further compensation amount to the appellants in M.F.A. No.5874 of 2011 does not arise. The appeal, however, would succeed to the limited extent that the amount of compensation determined by the High Court shall be first paid by Insurance Company with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. [Para 14] [372-D-F] Singh Ram v. Nirmala and Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 800 ; Pappu and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 208 : [2018] 1 SCR 195 – relied on.
2. Even in respect of the appeal filed by the injured claimant, the Tribunal had found that he failed to produce any evidence regarding his monthly income and the permanent disability suffered by him had been determined as not exceeding 10% to the whole body and compensation had been awarded to him on that basis. Resultantly, in this appeal also, Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimant in the first place, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. [Para 15] [373-A-C]
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.