Motor Accident Claim Can't Be Rejected Merely Because Vehicle's Make Was Wrongly Described

 

The Supreme Court observed that discrepancy in the make of the vehicle cannot be a ground to deny a rightful claim when the vehicle's registration number and other key details are consistent and correctly mentioned.

Because of the change of make of the vehicle, i.e., TATA Sumo in place of TATA Spacio, the claim as allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was rejected by the High Court upon setting aside the claim awarded by the Tribunal even though the vehicle's registration and other key details remained the same.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the registration number of the offending vehicle is KA-31/6059, was found involved in the criminal case which is one and the same, the finding of the High Court cannot be sustained. Even mere misdescription of the make of the vehicle could not have been treated as consistency or a ground to dismiss the claim petition itself, particularly when there is no change in the registration number of the offending vehicle. Therefore, impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside.”

PARAMESHWAR SUBRAY HEGDE VERSUS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR

Motor Accident Claims | 'Legal Representative' Is One Who Suffers Loss; Need Not Be Spouse, Child Or Parent Of Deceased

 

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the term 'legal representative' under the Motor Vehicle Act should not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent on the deceased's income

The Court said that if the claimants were dependent on the deceased's income, then they shall be granted compensation. A "legal representative" is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child, the Court held, referring to precedents.

The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case where the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”), while awarding compensation, didn't consider the 24-year-old deceased-Appellants' (Father and Sister) as dependents of the deceased. The MACT held that the father was not dependent on the income of the deceased and since the father was alive, the younger sister cannot also be held as a dependent of the deceased.

The High Court upheld this part of the MACT's ruling, leading the Appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned decision, the Court observed that the Court below had erred in refusing to consider the Appellants as dependents of the deceased.

Citing Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234 and N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. (2022) 14 SCC 712, the Court noted that proving loss of dependency alone is sufficient to claim compensation. It clarified that compensation is not limited to spouses, parents, or children but extends to all individuals affected by the deceased's death.

"In our view, the term “legal representative” should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased..We are also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation.",

“In our view, in furtherance of the above exposition of law, the appellant Nos.4 and 5 being the father and younger sister of the deceased, both not financially independent, would fall under the definition of legal representatives for the purpose of claiming the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and they were considered as dependents upon the income of the deceased, as he was doing wholesale business of selling fruits to meet the day-to-day expenses of the family.”

Thus, the Court considered the Appellants were dependents and awarded them compensation.

Case Title: SADHANA TOMAR & ORS. VERSUS ASHOK KUSHWAHA & ORS.

Accident--Gratuitous passengers--About 30-40 persons were travelling in the tempo truck--All 30-40 persons by no stretch of imagination could have been the representatives of the owners of goods. Insurance company not liable Accident--Ordinarily an allegation made in FIR would not be admissible in evidence per se but tribunal would be entitled to look into same where allegations made in FIR had been made a part of the part of claim petition.

sclaw.in

Accident—Personal Expenses—Where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, his personal and living expenses maybe restricted to one-third, as contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. Accident—Just Compensation—More than claimed—Court is duty bound and entitled to award "just compensation", irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. Accident—Filial Consortium—It is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child—An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. Accident—Interest on Compensation—Deceased was aged 24 years and his income assessed as that of unskilled worker—Compensation awarded with 12% interest p.a. from date of filing claim petition.

sclaw.in

Accident Law--Permanent disability--Earning capacity--Appellant was aged 15 years when he met with an accident on 14.9.1998 as a result whereof he sustained serious injuries and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70% of his left lower limb which had to be amputated--Loss of earning capacity should be treated as 60% of the monthly income--His annual income assessed at Rs. 21,600/

sclaw.in

Accident--Permanent disability--Certificate of Govt. Hospital, should not have disbelieved on the supposition that doctor had been issuing certificates fixing 'permanent disability which was not proportionate to the injury'.

sclaw.in

Accident--The owner of a vehicle cannot contend that he has no liability to verify the fact as to whether the driver of the vehicle possessed a valid licence or not.

sclaw.in

Accident--Appellate Court should record reasons for enhancing or reducing notional income of injured/deceased.

sclaw.in

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.I66--Accident-Claim Petition-Claims Tribunal is empowered to treat the report of the accident on its receipt as if it is an application made by the claimant for award of the compensation to him under the Act by virtue of Section 166 (4) of the Act and thus has jurisdiction to decide such application on merits in accordance with law.

sclaw.in

Accident Law--Compensation--Criteria--For arriving at just compensation, it is necessary to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependents at the time of his death and the amount, which he was accustomed to spend upon himself--This exercise has to be on the basis of the data, brought on record by the claimant, which again cannot be accurately ascertained and necessarily involves an element of estimate or it may partly be even a conjecture

sclaw.in

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S. 166--Accident-More than claimed-There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court is to award "just compensation"

sclaw.in

Accident Law--Impleading of Insurance--Liability of the insurance company arises for the purpose of reimbursement of the amount of compensation found to be payable by the owner of the vehicle insured--It is only in exceptional cases and as provided for under Section 170 of the Act, the insurance company can defend a claim petition--Only on limited grounds it may be permitted to question the quantum of compensation--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 170.

sclaw.in

Accident—Personal Expenses—Even if deceased had low income deduction of one third of income towards his personal expenditure is proper.

sclaw.in