SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 1185

2007(6) Supreme 574
Supreme Court of india
(From Karnataka High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. — Petitioner
versus
Syed Ibrahim & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 4308 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8499-8500 of 2005)
Decided on : 17-09-2007

important point
In determining compensation in case of a child, age of the parents would be a relevant factor.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 167 – The determination of damages for loss of human life becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning person – In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents – Although insurer was not liable to indemnify, award not interfered in view of (2001) 8 SCC 197.(Para 6 to 8)

       (2004) 3 SCC 297; (2003)7 SCC 484; (1913) AC 1; (2001) 8 SCC 197 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case:

       Appeal was preferred before the High Court questioning correctness of the judgment and Award dated 18.01.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimoga. The owner of lorry bearing registration No.MYJ-6666 had filed an appeal questioning correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal fixing the liability on him to pay compensation awarded. A cross-objection was filed by the complainants questioning the correctness of the compensation granted. The claim petition related to an accident which occurred on 20.11.1994 when a child aged seven years, who was the son of claimants, had lost his life. The claimants had filed the cross objections for enhancement of the compensation. Considering the materials on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.51,500/- as compensation. The High Court by the impugned order enhanced the sum to Rs.1,52,000/-. The appellant was directed to indemnify the award. Insurer’s stand before the Tribunal and the High Court was that the driver driving the lorry was not authorized to drive the lorry because he was only licenced to drive a Light Motor Vehicle. When the accident took place, i.e. on 20.11.1994, the driver was authorized to drive LMV. Subsequently, on 11.10.1996 at the time of renewal of licence it was endorsed that he was authorized to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle. The High Court was of the view that the owner is not expected to know as to what type of licence the driver possessed. If the driver was authorized to drive one type of vehicle and was driving another type of vehicle, it cannot be said that there was willful breach on the part of insured. The insurer was required to prove that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy and willful breach on the part of insured as he was holding the licence to drive any type of vehicle for which he was not licenced. It was noted by the High Court that the owner of the vehicle may not be knowing as to what was the nature of the licence held by the driver. Accordingly, the quantum of compensation was enhanced and the appellant was held to be liable to pay the entire compensation.

       Findings of the Court:

       Although insurer was not liable to indemnify, award maintained in view of (2001) 8 SCC 197.

       Result : Appeals allowed to the extent indicated.

judgment

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. Appeal was preferred before the High Court questioning correctness of the judgment and Award dated 18.01.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimoga (in short the ‘Tribunal’). The owner of lorry bearing registration No.MYJ-6666 had filed an appeal questioning correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal fixing the liability on him to pay compensation awarded. A cross-objection was filed by the complainants questioning the correctness of the compensation granted. The claim petition related to an accident which occurred on 20.11.1994 when a child aged seven years, who was the son of claimants, had lost his life. The claimants had filed the cross objections for enhancement of the compensation. Considering the materials on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.51,500/- as compensation. The High Court by the impugned order enhanced the sum to Rs.1,52,000/-. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurer’) was directed to indemnify the award. Insurer’s stand before the Tribunal and the High Court was that the driver driving the lorry was not authorized to drive the lorry because he was only licenced to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (in short the ‘LMV’). When the accident took place, i.e. on 20.11.1994, the driver was authorized to drive LMV. Subsequently, on 11.10.1996 at the time of renewal of licence it was endorsed that he was authorized to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle (in short the ‘HGV’). The High Court was of the view that the owner is not expected to know as to what type of licence the driver possessed. If the driver was authorized to drive one type of vehicle and was driving another type of vehicle, it cannot be said that there was wilfil breach on the part of insured. The insurer was required to prove that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy and wilful breach on the part of insured as he was holding the licence to drive any type of vehicle for which he was not licenced. It was noted by the High Court that the owner of the vehicle may not be knowing as to what was the nature of the licence held by the driver. Accordingly, the quantum of compensation was enhanced and the appellant was held to be liable to pay the entire compensation.

3.Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer submitted that the quantum, as fixed, is extremely high and is without any basis. Further the insured was the father of the driver and it is hard to believe that he did not know as to what type of vehicle the driver was authorized to drive. Reliance is placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh,1 (2004 (3) SCC 297) to contend that on the facts established and proved appellant has no liability.

4.Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a very young child lost his life and the insurance company should not take such technical stand.

5.In State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Ors.,2 (2003(7) SCC 484) it was held as under:

“7.It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense “damages” which in turn appears to it to be “just and reasonable”. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be “just” and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be ‘just” compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of h








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top