Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 501
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
G.P. MITTAL, J
Anita A Pathak & others
Versus
Raj Bahadur & others
MAC APP. 466, 451, 459, 454, 455, 456 & 464 OF 2010
Decided On: 21-02-2012
For the Appellant:Ms. Shalinee Rawat, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R3-Rajat Brar, Proxy Counsel for Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for motor vehicle accident claims, including the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, principles of compensation, and the liability of the insurance company in cases of breach of policy terms.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 149(2)(a)(i)(a) - Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425, Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 - General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors, (1994) 2 SCC 176, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338, National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297, New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors, ILR (2007) II Delhi 733
Fact of the Case:
The case involved seven connected appeals arising from a judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appeals related to compensation for death and injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident. The deceased was an Inspector in CBI, and the injured parties were also CBI officers. The insurance company disputed liability to pay compensation due to the breach of the terms of the policy and Section 149(2)(a)(i)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It held that the deceased's income tax deduction was miscalculated, and compensation for loss of dependency, love and affection, and loss to the estate was enhanced. The court also awarded additional compensation for pain and suffering, future treatment, loss of amenities, and loss of earning capacity to the injured parties. The court dismissed the appeals filed by the insurance company and directed it to make the enhanced compensation payments.
Issues: The issues included determining the cause of the accident, the amount of compensation for the deceased and injured parties, and the liability of the insurance company due to the breach of the policy terms and the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, the principles of compensation, and the liability of the insurance company in cases of breach of policy terms. The court relied on various legal provisions and precedents to determine the appropriate compensation and the insurer's liability.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals of the claimants, enhanced the compensation, and directed the insurance company to make the payments within 30 days. The appeals filed by the insurance company were dismissed, and it was granted recovery rights for the compensation paid.
G. P. MITTAL, J
1. These are seven connected Appeals arising out of a judgment dated 09.03.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby four Claim Petitions i.e. Suit No.515/2006, 517/2006, 523/2006 and 511/2006 were decided.
2. MAC APP.466/2010 has been filed by Smt. Anita A. Pathak for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 19,49,160/-granted for the death of Ashutosh Pathak in an accident which took place on 21.05.2003.
3. The ground urged by the Appellants is that the deceased was a young officer of 28 years working as Inspector in CBI. He had a bright future. It is contended that an amount of Rs. 4710/-was deducted towards the income tax for the Assessment Year 2003-04 instead from the annual income which resulted in lower figure under the head of loss of dependency.
4. MAC APP.451/2010 filed by Harjeet Singh Sachan relates to the injuries suffered by the Appellant. The ground set up by him is that no compensation has been awarded towards the conveyance and the special diet. The compensation awarded towards the pain and suffering was on the lower side. Harjeet Singh Sachan seeks enhancement of the compensation of Rs. 1,04,250/-to Rs. 2,20,000/-.
5. MAC APP.459/2010 filed by Vijay Kumar relates to the injuries suffered by him. At the time of accident he was a Senior CBI Officer. The ground set up by him is that no compensation has been awarded towards the conveyance and the special diet. The compensation awarded towards the pain and suffering, loss of amenities and on account of permanent disability suffered by him is too meager. He seeks enhancement of compensation from Rs. 1,43,780/-to Rs. 5,20,000/-.
6. In MAC APP. 454/2010, 455/2010, 456/2010 and 464/2010, plea of the Appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited is that vehicle involved in the accident i.e. Maruti Van No.UP-32U-7459 was being plied as a taxi. It was in violation of the terms of policy and Section 149 (2) (a) (i) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act). Since the willful breach of the terms of the policy was successfully established by the Insurance Company, the Claims Tribunal erred in directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in the first instance and then to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It is urged that the Insurer could not have been saddled with the liability to first pay the amount and then to recover the same.
7. For the sake of convenience, the Appellants in MAC APP. 466/2010, 451/2010 and 459/2010 shall be referred to as the Claimants (as they were before the Claims Tribunal) and M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited who has filed MAC APP. 454/2010, 455/2010, 456/2010 and 464/2010, shall be referred to as the Insurer.
8. The facts of the case can be culled out from the impugned judgment as under:-
“It is alleged that on that day the deceased Ashutosh Pathak who was Inspector in CBI and Sh. Attar Singh who was Constable in CBI along with Vijay Kuamr and Harjeet Singh Sachan were travelling together in connection with official duties and were coming from Lucknow to Delhi. It is alleged that car driver lost his balance and hit car with the tree. The impact proved fatal for Ashutosh Pathak and Attar Singh while other person namely Vijay Kumar and Harjeet Singh received injuries. The claim petition is filed by legal representatives of deceased person and injured person separately. The claim petitions are filed against driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle no.UP-32U-7459.
The insurance of offending vehicle is admitted while respondent driver has not produced any reply or evidence to dispute the facts. However, respondent no.2/owner filed reply and stated that the car was borrowed by CBI personally from him and it was not used as taxi as alleged by the petition. In the petition, however, it is mentioned that respondent no.2/owner was operating a Tour and Travel services under the name and style of Unique Tour & Travel, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. Insurance
