Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 240
High Court of Delhi
G.P. MITTAL, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another
Versus
Anita & Others
MAC.APP. Nos. 180, 181 & 193 of 2010
Decided on : 26-02-2013
For the Appearing Parties:Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, O.P. Mannie, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deceased's contribution to the accident does not absolve the tortfeasor or the Insurance Company from liability. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the importance of proving a wilful breach of the policy terms to avoid liability.
Headnote:
NEGLIGENCE - MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS - [MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, SECTION 149(2), SECTION 173 CRPC, SECTION 165 CRPC] - The court discussed the liability of the Insurance Company in a motor accident claim, emphasizing that the deceased's contribution to the accident did not absolve the tortfeasor or the Insurance Company from liability. The court also examined the evidence related to the driver's possession of a valid driving license and concluded that the Insurance Company failed to prove a wilful breach of the policy terms, thus upholding the liability of the Insurance Company.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of Pradeep Kumar and injuries to Anita. The Appeals arose from a judgment awarding compensation to the claimants and challenging the quantum of compensation, finding of negligence, and liability of the Insurance Company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased's contribution to the accident did not absolve the tortfeasor or the Insurance Company from liability. It also concluded that the Insurance Company failed to prove a wilful breach of the policy terms, upholding its liability.
Issues: The issues included the quantum of compensation, finding of negligence, and the liability of the Insurance Company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased's contribution to the accident did not absolve the tortfeasor or the Insurance Company from liability. It also emphasized that the Insurance Company failed to prove a wilful breach of the policy terms, upholding its liability.
Final Decision: The Appeals challenging the quantum of compensation, finding of negligence, and liability of the Insurance Company were dismissed. The compensation was enhanced, and the liability of the Insurance Company was upheld.
G.P. Mittal, J.
1. These three Appeals arise out of a judgment dated 05.12.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby two Claim Petitions, that is, MAC Suit No.176/2005 titled Babita & Ors. v. Surender & Ors., and MAC Suit No.183/2005 titled Anita v. Surender & Ors., were decided. A compensation of Rs.13,63,500/- was awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased Pradeep Kumar in MAC Suit No.176/2005 and a compensation of Rs.54,000/-was awarded in favour of Anita in MAC Suit No.183/2005 for having suffered injuries in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 06.04.2005.
2. MAC.APP.180/2010 and MAC.APP.181/2010 have been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. In MAC APP No.180/2010, the Insurance Company challenges the quantum of compensation, the finding of negligence as well as the liability, whereas in MAC APP 181/2010 only the liability is challenged. MAC APP 193/2010 is preferred by the legal heirs of deceased Pradeep Kumar whereby they seek enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant in MAC.APP.180/2010 and MAC.181/2010 shall be referred to as the Insurance Company, whereas the Appellants in MAC.APP.193/2010 shall be referred to as the Claimants.
4. First the facts. On 06.04.2005 at about 7:30 pm, deceased Pradeep Kumar, his wife Anita and others were travelling in a TSR bearing No.DL-1RC-1672. Deceased Pradeep Kumar was sitting along with the driver of the TSR, whereas injured Anita and others were sitting on the rear seat. According to the Claimants, the TSR was being driven by its driver Surender in a rash and negligent zigzag manner. While so driving, the driver had dashed against a buggi (a cart driven by male buffalo) loaded with iron rods. As a result of the accident, the windscreen got broken and the iron rods caused injuries to Pradeep and Anita. The TSR driver was lucky to escape unhurt. He removed the injured to GTB Hospital where Pradeep was declared brought dead.
5. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the TSR by Respondent Surender Kumar. The Claims Tribunal found that the multiple injuries suffered by Anita were grievous in nature and an overall compensation of Rs.54,000/- was awarded.
6. With regard to the fatal injuries suffered by Pradeep, the Claims Tribunal found that the deceased was employed in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). The Claims Tribunal, therefore, made an addition of 50% on account of future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and applied a multiplier of 13, holding that the deceased was aged more than 23 years. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards loss to estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. A further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and affection and an overall compensation of Rs.13,63,468/- (rounded off to Rs.13,63,500/-) was granted.
7. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Insurance Company:
(i) The deceased was aged 34 years. The appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 will be 16 as against 18 adopted by the Claims Tribunal.
(ii) The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is excessive and arbitrary.
(iii) Deceased Pradeep Kumar was sitting along with the driver of the TSR (on driver’s seat). Thus, he himself contributed to the accident. Since the tortfeasor was not liable to pay the entire compensation, the Insurance Company was not under an obligation to pay full compensation.
(iv) In addition to an offence under Section 304A IPC for causing death by rash and negligent act, the driver was also challaned for driving the TSR without any driving licence. A notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC was also issued to the owner and the driver of the TSR. The Claims Tribunal erred in
