Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166 (a) – Compensation – Injuries caused in a motor accident – Claimant suffered 100 per cent physical disability in a motor accident – Claim for compensation – Award of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 9% interest – Appeal before the High Court – During pendency of the appeal, death of claimant, not attributed to injuries suffered in the accident – Substitution of name of claimant’s daughter in the appeal – High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 37,81,234/- – On appeal, held: The Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation – If the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, the legal representatives can also pursue claims for loss of property akin to estate of the injured if he is deceased subsequently for reasons other than attributable to the accident or injuries under Clause 1(c) of s.166 – Such a claim would be completely distinct from personal injuries to the claimant and which may not be the cause of death – Such claims of personal injuries would undoubtedly abate with the death of the injured – Insurer has a statutory obligation to pay compensation in motor accident claim cases – This obligation cannot be evaded behind the defence that it was available only for personal injuries and abates on his death irrespective of the loss caused to the estate of the deceased because of the injuries – Total compensation reassessed as Rs.28,42,175/with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realisation.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for a statutory claim for compensation arising out of an accident by the person who has sustained the injury. Under Clause (b), compensation is payable to the owner of the property. In case of death, the legal representatives of the deceased can pursue the claim. Property, under the Act, will have a much wider connotation than the conventional definition. If the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, there is no reason why the legal representatives cannot pursue claims for loss of property akin to estate of the injured if he is deceased subsequently for reasons other than attributable to the accident or injuries under Clause 1(c) of Section 166. Such a claim would be completely distinct from personal injuries to the claimant and which may not be the cause of death. Such claims of personal injuries would undoubtedly abate with the death of the injured. What would the loss of estate mean and what items would be covered by it are issues which has to engage the attention. The appellant has a statutory obligation to pay compensation in motor accident claim cases. This obligation cannot be evaded behind the defence that it was available only for personal injuries and abates on his death irrespective of the loss caused to the estate of the deceased because of the injuries. [Para 9][475-E-H; 476-A]
1.2 The injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident required prolonged hospitalization for six months. The extent of disability suffered was assessed on 16.06.2000 as 100%. The extent of disability, pursuant to physiotherapy was reassessed as 75% on 08.08.2002. In the interregnum, the injured resigned his job on 30.09.2001 at the age of 53 years as he found movement difficult and inconvenient without an attendant as distinct from complete immobility. The injured was possessing professional qualifications in labour laws and Industrial relations along with a Diploma in Personnel Management. He may have had to suffer some handicap in also practicing before the labour court, but cannot be held to have suffered 100% physical disability as his capacity for rendering advisory and other work coupled with movement on a wheel chair with the aid of an attendant could still facilitate a reduced earning capacity. It cannot be held that the injured was completely left with no source of livelihood except to deplete his estate. In assessing, what has been described as a ‘Just Compensation’ under the Act, all factors including possibilities have to be kept in mind. [Para 17][478-C-F]
1.3 The tribunal, on technicalities rejected his claim for salary, medical expenses and percentage of disability and granted a measly compensation of Rupees one lakh only by a cryptic order. Therefore, while the claim for personal injuries may not have survived after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, but the claims for loss of estate caused was available to and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal. [Para 18][478-F-H]
1.4 Loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor’s fee, etc. including income and future prospects which would have caused reasonable accretion to the estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to be met from and depleted the estate of the injured, subsequently deceased. However, the compensation under the head pain and suffering being personal injuries is held to be unsustainable and is disallowed. The High Court has not awarded anything towards medical expenses despite hospitalisation for six months being an admitted fact. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses. Hence, the reassessed total compensation would be Rs.28,42,175/-. The appellant is thus, directed to pay to respondent no.1 within a period of four weeks Rs.28,42,175/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realisation. [Para 20-22][479-B-E; 480-A]
Kanamma v. Deputy General Manager, ILR 1990
Karnataka 4300; Uttam Kumar v. Madhav and Another, ILR 2002 Karnataka 1864; Umedchand Golcha v.
Dayaram and Others, 2002(1) MPLJ 249; Pravabati Gosh and Another v. Gautam Das and Others, 2009(4) GLR 64; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011)
1 SCC 343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179; Surpal Singh
Ladhubha Gohil v. Raliyatbahen Mohanbhai Savlia and Ors., 2009(2) GLH 217; Munni Devi and Others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 103 (2003) DLT 464; Venkatesan v. Kasthuri, 2014 ACJ 1621; Maimuna Begum and Others v. Taju and Others, 1989 MhLJ 352; Parmindar Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2019) 7 SCC 217 : [2019] 8 SCR 986; Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 413; Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel v. Joseph Francis Mewan and
Others, 2015 (2) GLH 499; Joti Ram v. Chamanlal, AIR 1985 P&H 2; Thailammai v. A.V. Mallayya Pillai, 1991 ACJ 185 (Mad) – referred to.
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.