Explore a groundbreaking legal analysis on the computation of compensation in motor accident claims as scrutinized by the Supreme Court. The court’s evaluation of pertinent factors such as income assessment, future prospects, and damages sets a significant precedent in legal jurisprudence. Stay tuned to unravel the intricate legal nuances highlighted in this case.
Facts
- The legal heirs of deceased Dinkar Shankarrao Ghorpade appealed against the High Court’s order setting aside the award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
- The income of the deceased was assessed to be Rs.10,000 per month by the Tribunal.
- The deceased died on 25.6.2007 after being shifted to Kamal Nayan Bajaj Hospital on 2.6.2007.
- The deceased was in a motorcycle accident with a Maruti-800 Car on 1.6.2007.
- A total compensation of Rs.8,90,000 was assessed, including funeral expenses, loss of consortium, and loss of estate.
- An FIR was registered against an unknown vehicle and driver, leading to the identification of the driver as Sanjay Sonwane.
- The owner of the vehicle denied the accident, stating that there was no relationship of employer and employee with the driver.
- The driver did not file a statement or appear as a witness.
- The cause of death was head injury, and the deceased was admitted to Ghati Hospital.
- Accident occurred by the vehicle owned by the owner.
- High Court did not accept the findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the accident cause and negligent driving by the driver.
- Link between the accident and the offending car was not established by the appellants.
- Neither the owner nor the Insurance Company examined the driver to prove the offending car was not involved in the accident.
- High Court noted that the Investigating Officer was not examined regarding the source of information about the offending car’s registration number.
- Injured pillion rider lodged a report against an unknown car driver a month after the incident.
Also Read: Landmark Judgment on Compensation for Fatal Accident
Analysis
- The appellant No 1’s statement about the accident is deemed truthful.
- The appellants did not seek enhanced compensation from the High Court.
- The owner of the vehicle appeared as a witness and had the chance to cross-examine.
- The compensation amount is being recomputed in line with a constitutional Bench Judgment.
- High Court’s approach was deemed unsustainable by the Supreme Court.
- Criminal trial evidence rules cannot be applied in Motor Vehicles Act Section 166 applications.
- Delay in filing complaint was attributed to mental disturbance and hospitalization.
- Daughters not being claimants does not affect compensation payable by the tortfeasor.
- Appellant No 1’s husband’s salary and age were disclosed in evidence.
- Appellant No 1 filed examination-in-chief disclosing the offending vehicle’s number.
- Due to the daughters being married, they were not impleaded as claimants.
- High Court’s focus on non-disclosure of driver’s name in FIR was criticized.
- The primary concern of appellant No 1 was to care for her critically injured husband.
- The High Court’s reliance on police information about driver name non-disclosure was questioned.
- The owner stood surety for the driver of his vehicle as per bail documents.
- The appellant claimed compensation for love and affection, as well as spousal and parental consortium.
- Compensation for loss of love and affection not permissible as per United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur & Ors.
- However, compensation for spousal and parental consortium is admissible.
- The Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. was pending before the High Court during the appeal.
- The High Court did not examine the question of enhancement of compensation as the Insurance Company’s appeal was accepted.
- Appellants entitled to enhanced compensation, especially for future prospects and other damages as per Pranay Sethi judgment.
Also Read: Land Acquisition Compensation Legal Analysis
Decision
- Compensation assessed at Rs. 11,63,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a.
- Order passed by the High Court set aside.
- Appeal allowed.
- Monthly income of the deceased assessed at Rs. 10,000/- by the learned Tribunal.
- Compensation calculation based on income, age, and future prospects.
- Applicable from the date of filing of the claim application till realization.
Also Read: Legal Analysis in Land Allotment Case
Case Title: JANABAI Vs. M/S I.C.I.C.I. LAMBORD INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (2022 INSC 811)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005220-005220 / 2022
