0

Delhi High Court Raises Compensation to Rs. 66 Lakhs for Appellant with 100% Disability, Awards 9% Interest per Annum

Blog ,

Case Title: JAGJOT SINGH VS. OM PRAKASH & ANR

Case No.: MAC. APP. 277/2019 & CM APPL. 53916/2019

Dated on: May 07, 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. DHARMESH SHARMA

Facts of the Case:

The appellant, Jagjot Singh, was involved in a road accident on October 15, 2012, near the Azadpur flyover underpass in Delhi. He was hit by a Bajaj Auto delivery van driven by Om Prakash in a rash and negligent manner, due to which Jagjot Singh suffered multiple grievous injuries, resulting in a 100% Permanent Locomotor Disability and rendering him in a vegetative state since the accident. As a result, legal proceedings were supervened, and Jagjot Singh filed a claim petition seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ruled in favor of Jagjot Singh, awarding compensation totaling Rs. 66,00,000/- with interest. Thereafter, Jagjot Singh appealed against the Tribunal’s decision, arguing that the awarded compensation was insufficient, particularly considering his disability. However, the HC acknowledged the severity of Jagjot Singh’s injuries and ordered an enhancement of the compensation amount, especially for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of marriage prospects.

Issues framed by the Court:

  1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent, resulting in injuries to the appellant?
  2. If the appellant is entitled to compensation, what amount and from whom?
  3. Relief sought by the appellant.

Legal Provisions:

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Deals with the duty of the driver in case of an accident and states that the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or bodily injury to any person or damage to property shall, if required by any police officer in uniform, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle, and also the registration mark of the vehicle.

Section 168 of M.V. Act: Pertains to the requirement of obtaining a driving license.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The appellant in this case primarily contends that the compensation awarded is insufficient, especially considering the appellant’s 100% Permanent Locomotor Disability. They argue that the correct multiplier wasn’t applied for future medical expenses, and the compensation for attendant charges was inadequate. Additionally, they claim that the tribunal didn’t consider the revision in minimum wages and didn’t provide compensation for loss of matrimonial life/marriage prospects or for the disability/disfigurement resulting from the accident. They also seek compensation for automatic wheelchair and its maintenance, and for ongoing medical expenses throughout life.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The respondent, represented by Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate, denied the allegations of negligence and fault on their part. They asserted that the accident resulted from the negligence of the appellant and not their own. The respondent claimed that the offending vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of the accident, covering third-party risks. Further, the respondent contested the appellant’s claim for higher compensation, arguing against the appellant’s assertions regarding the insufficiency of the awarded compensation and the arrangement for future medical expenses.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The High Court analyzed the evidence and submissions made by both parties. It observed that the Tribunal’s compensation was insufficient, particularly considering the appellant’s 100% Permanent Locomotor Disability. The court revised the compensation, considering various factors such as future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, attendant charges, and special diet expenses. After a detailed analysis, the court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 66,00,000 and awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by- Shramana Sengupta

Click here to read the judgement

0

Double Compensation Claim Denied Due to Full Settlement with Own Insurer: Karnataka High Court

Blog, High Court of Karnataka, Uncategorized , , ,

Double Compensation Claim Denied Due to Full Settlement with Own Insurer: Karnataka High Court
Case title: Kumarvel Janakiram VS The National Insurance Company & ORS
Case no.: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5788 OF 2013
Dated on: 22nd April 2024
Quorum: Justice Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Mulimani.

FACTS OF THE CASE
The claimant contended that on 12.05.2009 at about 9:30 am., his father was driving a Maruthi Omni Van bearing Registration No. KA-53 N-5346 along with his relative P. Prakash towards Narayana Hrudayalaya for medical checkup. When they reached near old Chandapura Circle on Hosur Road, he slowed down the vehicle to take U-turn. At that time, a driver of a Mahindra Maxi Pick-up vehicle bearing Registration No. KA04-3-9516 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Maruthi Omni Van and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the Maruthi Omni Van was damaged which could not be repaired. It is contended that due to the damage of the Maruthi Omni Van he was constrained to purchase a new Car. Contending that he is entitled for compensation for damaged property, the claimant filed a Claim Petition. In response to the notice, the second respondent remained absent before the Tribunal and hence, it was placed ex-parte. The first and third respondents appeared through their counsel and filed separate written statement denying the petition averments. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:01.02.2013 dismissed the Claim Petition as not maintainable. The claimant has assailed the Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The petitioner’s learned counsel submits that the Judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record and law. Next, he submits that the Tribunal has erred in coming to conclusion that the claim having already been settled with the claimant’s insurer, the present claim is duplicated. A further submission is made that the due to the damage of the Car, the claimant was put to inconvenience and he was forced to use alternate vehicle. Learned counsel for appellant contended in view of tortuous liability, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the Judgment of the Tribunal is untenable. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed. To substantiate the contention, learned counsel for the claimant placed reliance on the decision in R.P. ZUBER VS. BASAVARA’APPA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2015.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondent counsel submitted that the Insurance Companies justified the Judgment of the Tribunal. They submits that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed. The point that requires consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the accident occurred on 12.05.2009. According to the claimant, his vehicle was damaged on account of rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Maxi Pick-up vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-04-B-9516 and his car was damaged. It is not in dispute that the claimant vehicle was insured with Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company and he received a sum of Rs.95,259/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Nine only) from the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company towards damage of the vehicle. It is relevant to note that the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.1,41,516/- towards property damage from the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. The claimant was examined as PWI. In the cross examination, he states that he has received the entire amount towards the damage of the property from his Insurance company. Admittedly, damaged vehicle was insured with the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company and the claimant has received the full and final settlement of his claim without any reservation or demur. In the absence of any material to show that the claim paid by his Insurance Company represented a part only of the total damage, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the claim for any further payment. I, therefore, see no merit in the contention of the claimant that the claimant is entitled to compensation for the damaged property.

ISSUES
• whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, ACT : That the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records with utmost care. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the accident occurred on 12.05.2009. According to the claimant, his vehicle was damaged on account of rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Maxi Pick-up vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-04-B-9516 and his car was damaged. It is not in dispute that the claimant vehicle was insured with Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company and he received a sum of Rs.95,259/- (Rupees Ninety-Five Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty-Nine only) from the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company towards damage of the vehicle. It is relevant to note that the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.1,41,516/- towards property damage from the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. The claimant was examined as PWI. In the cross examination, he states that he has received the entire amount towards the damage of the property from his insurance company. Admittedly, damaged vehicle was insured with the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company and the claimant has received the full and final settlement of his claim without any reservation or demur. In the absence of any material to show that the claim paid by his Insurance Company represented a part only of the total damage, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the claim for any further payment. I, therefore, see no merit in the contention of the claimant that the claimant is entitled to compensation for the damaged property. in HARKHU BAI’s case, the Division Bench has held that if the claimant has received the amount in full and final settlement of his claim without any reservation or demur, he cannot claim further payment from the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. As already noted above, in the present case, the claimant has received the amount from his Insurance Company as full and final settlement. Hence, he cannot claim further payment from the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. Hence, the contention regarding tortuous liability must necessarily fail. The present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid decision. The appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to be rejected and also the Miscellaneous First Appeal is rejected.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

 

0

Upholding Compensation in Motor Vehicle Accident Case: Delhi High Court Affirms Tribunal’s Decision.

Blog, Delhi High Court , , ,

Upholding Compensation in Motor Vehicle Accident Case: Delhi High Court Affirms Tribunal’s Decision.

Case title: United India Insurance Co. LTD Vs SMT Somti Devi & ORS

Case no.: MAC.APP.NO. 305 OF 2023& CM APPL. NO.42287 OF 2021 & CM APPL. NO. 42289 OF 2021

Dated on: 8th May 2024

Quorum: Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881, seeking modification of the judgment-cum-award dated 11.10.2021 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi2 in claim petition bearing MACT No. 56306/2016 titled as „Smt. Somti Devi & Ors. v. Mahender Singh & Ors.‟ Rishipal Singh aged about 32 years sustained fatal injuries in a motor accident on 03.11.2014 that occurred at about 1.30 p.m. near Gate No.4 of Metro Station, Kashmere Gate, Delhi when TSR3 No. DL-1RL-2032, in which he was travelling, driven by its driver dashed against a parked DTC4 bus bearing registration No. DL-1PB-1506 (hereinafter referred as the ‘offending vehicle’) against its front right side tyre portion. The claimants, who are the wife, four children and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act against the respondent No.1/driver and the registered owner/respondent No.2 of the offending bus. While the offending vehicle, which was evidently insured with the respondent No.3, the TSR was not insured for third party risks. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed common written statement and inter alia took a preliminary objection that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle but on the part of the driver of the ill-fated TSR. Learned Tribunal decided the issue as regard the factum of accident and the culpability, is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.” As the fatal accident has arisen out of the use of offending

vehicle, accordingly, as per Second Schedule annexed to M. V. Act, as amended up to date, compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- is admissible to the petitioners. The petitioners are also entitled to be granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Each of the petitioners is also entitled to be granted a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards consortium (spousal, parental and filial as the case may be). The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 7,70,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) (Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/+Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/-) on account of the untimely death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident dated 03.11.2014.”

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent.

Section 163A of the MV Act, 1988: Provides for compensation to the victim/applicant/claimant in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Such compensation shall be paid by the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer of the motor vehicle that caused such accident.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The learned counsels for the rival parties and on perusal of the record including the digitized Trial Court Record, although the plea raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company that there was no fault on the part of the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident is clearly borne out from the record, but it does not cut any ice when it comes to the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act. The aforesaid decisions make it quite clear that Parliament by introducing Section 163-A in the MVA provided for payment of compensation on structured formula basis by mandating that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer would be liable to pay compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be in a claim made under sub-section (1) of Section 163-A of the MVA. In order to prove a claim of this nature the claimant would not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. the aforesaid proposition of law, reverting to the instant matter, the offending vehicle presumably was being plied before the accident and at the time of accident it was parked in a public place6 and the same was accordingly in „use‟ in the context of the MV Act.

The claimants are made entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,70,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 13.11.2014 till realization, which be deposited with the learned Tribunal within four weeks from today, failing which the appellant/insurance company shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this judgment till realization The observations which have been spelled out by the learned Tribunal in this regard cannot be faulted in law. In other words, the wrong manner of the parking of the offending bus at a public place would also be sufficient to impute “use” of the vehicle on the road. By virtue of section 163A of the MV Act, the claimants are not enjoined upon to prove any culpability of the driver of the offending bus either. The present appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company is dismissed, The present appeal along with the pending applications stands disposed of.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Upholding Compensation in Motor Vehicle Accident Case: Delhi High Court Affirms Tribunal’s Decision.
Case title: United India Insurance Co. LTD Vs SMT Somti Devi & ORS
Case no.: MAC.APP.NO. 305 OF 2023& CM APPL. NO.42287 OF 2021 & CM APPL. NO. 42289 OF 2021
Dated on: 8th May 2024
Quorum: Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881, seeking modification of the judgment-cum-award dated 11.10.2021 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi2 in claim petition bearing MACT No. 56306/2016 titled as „Smt. Somti Devi & Ors. v. Mahender Singh & Ors.‟ Rishipal Singh aged about 32 years sustained fatal injuries in a motor accident on 03.11.2014 that occurred at about 1.30 p.m. near Gate No.4 of Metro Station, Kashmere Gate, Delhi when TSR3 No. DL-1RL-2032, in which he was travelling, driven by its driver dashed against a parked DTC4 bus bearing registration No. DL-1PB-1506 (hereinafter referred as the ‘offending vehicle’) against its front right side tyre portion. The claimants, who are the wife, four children and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act against the respondent No.1/driver and the registered owner/respondent No.2 of the offending bus. While the offending vehicle, which was evidently insured with the respondent No.3, the TSR was not insured for third party risks. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed common written statement and inter alia took a preliminary objection that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle but on the part of the driver of the ill-fated TSR. Learned Tribunal decided the issue as regard the factum of accident and the culpability, is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.” As the fatal accident has arisen out of the use of offending
vehicle, accordingly, as per Second Schedule annexed to M. V. Act, as amended up to date, compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- is admissible to the petitioners. The petitioners are also entitled to be granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Each of the petitioners is also entitled to be granted a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards consortium (spousal, parental and filial as the case may be). The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 7,70,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) (Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/+Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/-) on account of the untimely death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident dated 03.11.2014.”

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent.
Section 163A of the MV Act, 1988: Provides for compensation to the victim/applicant/claimant in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Such compensation shall be paid by the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer of the motor vehicle that caused such accident.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The learned counsels for the rival parties and on perusal of the record including the digitized Trial Court Record, although the plea raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company that there was no fault on the part of the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident is clearly borne out from the record, but it does not cut any ice when it comes to the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act. The aforesaid decisions make it quite clear that Parliament by introducing Section 163-A in the MVA provided for payment of compensation on structured formula basis by mandating that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer would be liable to pay compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be in a claim made under sub-section (1) of Section 163-A of the MVA. In order to prove a claim of this nature the claimant would not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. the aforesaid proposition of law, reverting to the instant matter, the offending vehicle presumably was being plied before the accident and at the time of accident it was parked in a public place6 and the same was accordingly in „use‟ in the context of the MV Act.
The claimants are made entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,70,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 13.11.2014 till realization, which be deposited with the learned Tribunal within four weeks from today, failing which the appellant/insurance company shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this judgment till realization The observations which have been spelled out by the learned Tribunal in this regard cannot be faulted in law. In other words, the wrong manner of the parking of the offending bus at a public place would also be sufficient to impute “use” of the vehicle on the road. By virtue of section 163A of the MV Act, the claimants are not enjoined upon to prove any culpability of the driver of the offending bus either. The present appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company is dismissed, The present appeal along with the pending applications stands disposed of.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

The Kerala High Court held that All-India tourist vehicles are subject to fines and are not allowed to operate as stage carriers

Blog , , ,

Title: Abdulla. H. Naushad v. The State of Kerala
Decided on: 24 November, 2023

+ WP(C) NO. 39289 OF 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh

Introduction

According to the Kerala High Court, All India Tourist vehicles are not allowed to function as stage carriers. As a result, bus owners who violate these criteria may face fines.

Facts of the Case

The bus owners, who are the petitioners in this writ case, have asked, among other things, that the motor vehicle authorities and officials refrain from detaining their vehicles, which are in possession of valid All India Tourist Permits, on the grounds that they are in violation of section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, because the passengers are getting on and off the vehicle at different points along the way. The State Bus Department claims that even though the petitioners’ vehicles were in compliance with the terms of their all-India tourism visa, they were being used as stage carriages. As a result, it was claimed that the petitioners had received penalty checks for breaking the terms of their all-India tourist permits. Nonetheless, the petitioner argued that the Court has issued temporary orders in other pending cases that are comparable.

Courts analysis and decision

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) would suffer, the court ruled, hence the same cannot be allowed. The court further ruled, saying that “it is detrimental to stage carriage operators, including KSRTC, for all India tourist vehicles to function as stage carriages. The petitioners risk fines if they violate the terms of their permit. The petition and other related proceedings have now been listed by the court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement