The recent judgment by the Delhi High Court regarding the conversion of the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act involves a crucial dispute between the Claimants and the Insurance Company. The court’s ruling provides clarity on the process of converting claim petitions and the factors considered in assessing compensation for accidents. This case brings to the forefront the complexities of legal procedures and the principles underlying the determination of fair compensation in such matters.
Facts
- The claim petition was converted to one under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act.
- Statutory compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs was awarded to each parent.
- Additional compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to each parent for loss of consortium.
- Funeral expenses and loss of estate compensation of Rs. 15,000/- each for the parents.
- Dismissal of the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
- Total compensation of Rs. 6,10,000/- awarded to the claimants-parents.
- Interest rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR till realization.
- Appeals filed by the insurer and insured parties under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- PW-2 Wasim was examined by the police during the investigation in FIR no. 435/15 PS Burari related to the accident.
- PW-2 stated that he saw the offending bus stopped at Burari Red Light for passengers to alight.
- According to PW-2, the deceased was alighting from the bus when R-1 suddenly sped up the bus, causing the deceased to fall and be run over by the rear wheels.
- The claimants filed a petition claiming compensation for the deceased’s death in the accident.
- FIR No. 435/2015 was registered under Sections 279/338 of the IPC at Police Station Burari.
- PW-2 affirmed in his affidavit that he witnessed the incident where the driver of the offending bus negligently ran over a boy alighting from the bus.
- PW-2 made a call to the police helpline after the accident.
- R-1 and R-3 cross-examined PW-2 during the proceedings.
Arguments
- The argument made by the appellant/Insurance Company is that the Tribunal did not have the authority to convert a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act into one under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act without an application from the claimants-parents.
- The appellant’s counsel heavily relied on the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to support their argument.
- The appellant also contended that the awarded compensation amount was not in accordance with the law.
- Deepal Girishbhai Soni preferred two simultaneous claim petitions under different sections of the M.V. Act.
- The core issue was whether the claimant could file two separate petitions assuming Section 163-A proceedings were interim orders.
- The Supreme Court found the appellant’s challenge to the conversion of the claim petition to Section 163-A was not sustainable.
- The Insurance Company argued that the testimony of PW-2/Wasim had flaws with embellishments, and the Tribunal was correct in absolving the bus driver of responsibility.
Analysis
- The deceased alighted from the offending vehicle while it was in motion based on witness testimony.
- The deceased jumped out from the front gate of the moving bus without requesting the driver or conductor to stop.
- The driver and conductor of the bus testified that the deceased alighted from the front door near the driver’s side.
- The court discussed the conversion of the claim petition from Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act based on previous judgments and legal provisions.
- The court upheld the decision that the driver of the bus cannot be condemned as he is not expected to focus on entry/exit gates while driving, focusing only on preventing collisions.
- The testimony of witnesses aligned in stating that the deceased was negligent in alighting from the moving bus.
- The court highlighted that the Claims Tribunal may permit amendment of claim petitions for enhanced compensation in suitable cases.
- The court found no grounds for enhancing the compensation amount sought by the claimants, as the deceased’s actions contributed to the accident.
- Section 163-A of the M.V. Act has been repealed by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, effective from 09.08.2019.
- Section 164 has been introduced in place of Section 163-A, stating the liability of the owner or authorized insurer for compensation in case of death or grievous hurt due to a motor vehicle accident.
- The compensation amounts specified are five lakh rupees in case of death and two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt.
- Claimants are not required to prove wrongful act or neglect for compensation under this section.
- Any compensation paid under another law for the same accident must be deducted from the compensation payable under this section.
- Special provision for compensation up to Rs. Five Lacs without proof of rashness or negligence by tort-feasers
- Loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses not covered under this provision
- Award of compensation by Tribunal for these falls outside the scope and is not legally sustainable
Decision
- The appeal filed by the claimants-parents (MAC. APP. 225/2021) is dismissed.
- The appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company (MAC. APP. 194/2021) is partly allowed, and the total compensation amount is fixed at Rs. Five Lacs.
- The compensation will be payable to the claimants-parents with interest at 7.5% from the date of filing of the DAR till realization.
- The amount of statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the insurance company will be forfeited to the State.
- Rs. Two Lacs have already been disbursed to the claimants-parents by the insurance company.
- The insurance company is liable to pay interest on the total compensation amount.
- The total compensation amount in case of death is Rs. Five Lacs.
Case Title: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SH. SHIV PRASAD INDRAMANI@ SHIV PRASAD SHARMA@SHIV PRASAD BHATT & ORS. (2024:DHC:4303)
Case Number: MAC.APP.-194/2021
