0

Delhi Court Reduces Compensation in Fatal Motor Accident Claim Due to Contributory Negligence of Unlicensed Minor

Blog, Delhi High Court , , ,

Delhi Court Reduces Compensation in Fatal Motor Accident Claim Due to Contributory Negligence of Unlicensed Minor

Case title: SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS

Case no.: MAC.APP. 992/2017

Dated on: 22nd   May 2024

Quorum:  Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The deceased-Kunal aged about 15 years, who was driving a Scooty bearing registration No. DL4SCD 9679, that was involved in an accident on 07.05.2016 at about 01:00 P.M., when he was hit by a TATA Truck-407 bearing registration No. DL-1LT-6310 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’ for brevity) driven by respondent No.3/Chhote Lal, which was owned by respondent No.4/Ravinder Singh and duly insured for third party risks with the appellant/insurance company. The learned Tribunal vide issue No.1 found that the driver of the offending vehicle was at fault and it was his rash and negligent driving that led to the accident resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased-Kunal and thus, the claim petition filed by the claimants parents was allowed and the aforementioned compensation has been awarded to them. The impugned judgment-cum-award dated 04.09.2017 has been assailed in the present appeal, upon which, vide order dated 04.10.2018, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was ordered to be released to the claimants-parents without prejudice.

 ISSUE

  1. Whether or not the driver of the offending vehicle was at fault?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This act governs various aspects related to motor vehicles, including licensing, insurance, and liability in case of accidents.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act: This section deals with the application for compensation arising out of accidents by victims or their legal representatives.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act: This section pertains to appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Mr. Sameer Nandwani, learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company urged that the impugned judgment-cum-award is not sustainable on facts and law since the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased was 15 years of age and he did not have a valid driving license to drive a Scooty on a public road and he was not even wearing a Helmet. It was further submitted that even the registered owner of the Scooty, who is the respondent No.4 in the present appeal, was not made a party to the claim petition and that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the issue of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Mr. Ghanshyam Thakur, learned counsel for the claimants-parents urged that there was a categorical finding by the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, resulting into fatal injuries to the deceased, and thus, there arose no question of fastening the deceased with any fault.

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The appellant/insurance company has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 04.09.2017, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (West-01), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the claim petition under Section 166/140 of the MV Act filed by the parents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘claimants-parents’) of the deceased boy-Kunal, who was aged about 15 years, was allowed and they have been granted a total compensation of Rs. 10,19,640/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The learned Tribunal vide issue No.1 found that the driver of the offending vehicle was at fault and it was his rash and negligent driving that led to the accident resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased-Kunal and thus, the claim petition filed by the claimants parents was allowed and the aforementioned compensation has been awarded to them. A careful perusal of the aforesaid reasoning given by the learned Tribunal would show that it relied upon the testimony of PW 2, who was a pillion rider on the Scooty at the time of the accident, who testified that he, along with the deceased-Kunal, had gone to purchase some cold drinks and when they reached Paschimpuri Chowk, New Delhi, the deceased took a turn towards the right with due care and caution when all of a sudden, the offending vehicle which was coming from the side of Paschim Vihar, driven at a fast pace and in a rash and negligent manner, hit their Scooty with great force and due to the heavy impact, they fell on the road and received serious injuries. In his cross-examination, PW-2 for the first time volunteered that the offending vehicle had hit their Scooty after jumping the red light, but then he also testified that he could not see the offending vehicle prior to the accident. However, he acknowledged the fact that the deceased was not wearing a Helmet at the time of the accident. A bald suggestion was given in the cross examination of PW-2 that it was the deceased who was guilty of negligence but without elaborating how or in what manner. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no gainsaying that the deceased was not possessing a valid driving license and he was also not wearing a Helmet, which might have saved his life. All said and done, while the evidence on the record does attribute some degree of fault on the part of the deceased too, this Court understands that children are children and they would at times drive around motor vehicles despite having no driving license, but then, it is the paramount duty of the parents to rein them and see that they do no perform such audacious acts which amounts to a violation of the law. Although unfortunately, a teenage life was lost at the age of 15 years, which must have caused a degree of pain and anguish to the claimants-parents, but then, it was their responsibility alone to teach their son and instill in him the respect for the law of the land. In view of the above discussion, attributing some contributory negligence on the part of the deceased too, the total amount of compensation should be reduced by 50%. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,19,640/- from the date of filing of the DAR9 / claim petition i.e. 14.09.2016 till realization. In view of this Court, it would be appropriate to award the compensation assessed as per the parameters laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi10. During the relevant time, the minimum wages for a non-matriculate were Rs.10,582/- per month. Thus, assuming the notional income of the deceased boy to be Rs. 10,582/- plus enhancing the same by 40% towards loss of future prospects, the annual notional income comes to Rs. 1,77,778/-. Since the deceased was a boy aged about 15 years, 1/2nd is to be deducted towards personal use and living expenses. Further, considering that the deceased-Kunal was 15 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of is applied as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC11. Thus, total loss of financial dependency would come to Rs.16,00,002/-. Further, Rs.40,000/- is to be awarded to each of the parents towards loss of consortium besides Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation works out to be Rs.17,10,002/-. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant/ insurance company towards statutory deposit for filing of the instant appeal be released in their favour. The present appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

“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

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

In resolving differences between the penalty imposed and Regulation 39(1)(d), the Madhya Pradesh High Court renders a definitive decision

Blog

Facts of the Case:

The 10-year-old girl died in a traffic accident, and an appeal was filed against a judgment that partially granted a claim petition for compensation. The tractor’s careless and reckless driving was the cause of the collision. The appellate court raised the amount given by the tribunal from Rs. 2,25,000 to Rs. 5,00,000 plus 6% annual interest.

Legal Provisions

This case includes an appeal against a decision and award made by the Motor Claims Tribunal, submitted in accordance with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The legislative provisions that are relevant to this case deal with how compensation for the death of a minor in a traffic accident is determined, following the guidelines set forth by the Motor Vehicles Act and appropriate judicial decisions.

Issues

The issues is whether the claimants were able to show the details of the event that resulted in the little girl’s death, whether they were entitled to compensation, and how much money would be fair in light of applicable precedents and legal guidelines.

Court’s analysis and decision

The court carefully reviewed the facts and heard arguments from both sides. It was noted that there is a well-established legal framework pertaining to compensation for the death of a youngster in a traffic accident. It upheld the plaintiffs’ position, citing prior decisions, and declared that the tribunal’s award of compensation was insufficient. As a result, the court granted the appeal, raising the award to Rs. 5,00,000 plus 6% annual interest from the petition’s filing date to its realization.

“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- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari

click to read the judgment