Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.K.GAUBA, J.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD – Appellant
Versus
RAHUL & ORS. - Respondent
MAC.APP. 991/2012 And MAC.APP. 994/2012
Decided on : 29-03-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. A. K. Soni, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
The court held that the scooter driver and the car driver were equally responsible for the accident. The compensation awarded to the injured claimant was reduced by 50%. The court made adjustments to the calculation of compensation based on future prospects and loss of dependency. The out-of-pocket expenses awarded to the claimants' counsel were set aside.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 140 - The court analyzed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Sections 166 and 140, which deal with accident claims and compensation. The court considered the liability of the car driver and the calculation of compensation based on the provisions of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
On 22.03.2011, a motor vehicular accident occurred involving a scooter and a car. The scooter driver died and the passenger was injured. Two accident claim petitions were filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The tribunal found the car driver negligent and awarded compensation to the deceased's parents and the injured. The insurance company appealed against the finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation. The court found that the scooter driver and the car driver were equally responsible for the accident. The compensation awarded to the injured was reduced by 50%. The court also made adjustments to the calculation of compensation based on future prospects and loss of dependency. The out-of-pocket expenses awarded to the claimants' counsel were set aside. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, including the FIR and the statements of the witnesses. It found that the initial pleadings created a wrong impression about the scooter driver, but the evidence showed that the injured claimant was driving the scooter. The court also considered the issue of contributory negligence and held both the scooter driver and the car driver equally responsible for the accident. The court made adjustments to the calculation of compensation based on future prospects and loss of dependency. The out-of-pocket expenses awarded to the claimants' counsel were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the scooter driver and the car driver were equally responsible for the accident. The compensation awarded to the injured claimant was reduced by 50%. The court made adjustments to the calculation of compensation based on future prospects and loss of dependency. The out-of-pocket expenses awarded to the claimants' counsel were set aside.
Result: The appeals were disposed of. The insurance company was directed to deposit the balance of its liability with the tribunal, and the amounts deposited with the bank were ordered to be released to the claimants. The statutory amounts, if deposited, were to be refunded. The court made adjustments to the compensation awarded to the injured claimant and set aside the out-of-pocket expenses awarded to the claimants' counsel.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
1. On 22.03.2011, at about 10:00 AM, a motor vehicular accident occurred involving two vehicles, one being scooter bearing registration no.DL-8SN-2978 (the scooter) and the other being Indica car bearing registration no.DL-3CAX-0964 (the car). Admittedly, three persons were moving on the scooter at the time of collision, they being Amit, Rahul & Vishal. As a result of fall, at least Amit & Rahul suffered injuries, with the former (Amit) dying in the consequence.
2. Two accident claim petitions under Sections 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act) were instituted on 11.05.2011, both being presented by the same counsel (Mr. Karan Bal, Advocate) engaged for such purposes. One of the said claim petitions (MACT case no.151/2011) was filed by the parents of the deceased Amit, while the other (MACT case no.235/2011) was filed by Rahul, the injured. Both the cases were inquired into together leading to a common judgment passed by the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) on 29.05.2012 which is impugned in these two appeals by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (the insurer) which had admittedly issued a third party insurance policy in respect of the car for the period in question.
3. It may be mentioned that the driver and the registered owner of the car (the insured) were also impleaded as respondents in the two claim cases; the driver (Rajender Kumar), by way of his written statement, taking the position that the accident had occurred due to sole negligence of the scooter driver.
4. By the impugned judgment, the tribunal returned the finding that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the car driver. It assessed the compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,76,668/- in the death case (on the claim petition presented by parents of the deceased Amit) and Rs. 1,35,000/- in the case of injuries (suffered by Rahul). It was awarded in the two cases with interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) from the date of the filing of the petition(s) till realization. The insurer was directed to satisfy the award and also to pay Rs. 80,000/- as out of the pocket expenses to the counsel representing the claimants in the two cases.
5. The insurer by these appeals questions the correctness of the finding recorded by the tribunal on the issue of negligence. Its argument is that the story set out in the two cases about Amit being the driver of the scooter was false, as exposed, inter-alia, by the first information report (FIR) that had been registered vide no.60/2011 in police station South Rohini on 22.03.2011 on the statement of Rahul (claimant in MACT case no.235/2011) showing that it is he himself who was driving the said vehicle with Amit and other person (Vishal) being pillion riders. The appellant (in MAC appeal no. 991/2012) submits that since the evidence shows that Rahul was guilty of contributory negligence, the amount of compensation deserves to be reduced proportionately.
6. By appeal in the death case (MAC appeal no.994/2012), the insurance company argues that the element of future prospects was wrongly factored in, even though the income had been assessed notionally on the basis of minimum wages. It further points out that the multiplier of 14 was incorrectly adopted ignoring the fact that the age of the mother (first respondent in MAC appeal no.991/2012) was 46 years and 7 months as on the relevant date in which view, per the dictum in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 12, the proper multiplier should have been 13. The insurance company is further aggrieved with the burden of out-of-pocket expenses being directed to be paid to the counsel representing the claimants in these two cases. The insurance company also questions the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of estate.
7. Per contra, the counsel for the claimants in death case, (first and second respondents in MAC appeal no.994/2012) pointed out that amount of Rs. 30,000/- though held proved (p
