Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Balvinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar & Ors. - Respondents
F.A.O. No. 188 of 2019, 494 of 2019
Decided On : 23-07-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - S.166 - [DEATH OF KARAM CHAND] - [S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to compensation under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the entitlement of legal representatives to claim compensation. The court referred to judgments in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi to establish that legal representatives, even if not dependents, are entitled to compensation on account of loss of estate. The court also highlighted the interpretation of the term 'legal representative' and the liability to pay compensation under the Act. The judgment further discussed the assessment of income and loss of dependency, emphasizing the principles laid down in Govind Yadav v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Smt. Pappi Devi v. Kali Ram. The court also addressed the application of multipliers and the determination of compensation under various heads, citing the principles from Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram. The court concluded by modifying the award passed by the Tribunal to include compensation for loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral charges, and parental consortium.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Karam Chand, was involved in a road accident and his legal representatives filed a claim petition for compensation under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants argued that they suffered a huge financial loss due to the death of Karam Chand and deserved compensation. The appellant, Balwinder Singh, challenged the award on the grounds of dependency, income assessment, and lack of evidence for the accident. The court found that the claimants were largely dependent on the deceased and upheld the income assessment made by the Tribunal. The court also noted that the evidence supported the occurrence of the accident and dismissed the appeal filed by Balwinder Singh. The respondents sought enhancement of the compensation, which the court partly allowed, modifying the award to include compensation for loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral charges, and parental consortium.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants were entitled to compensation under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act as legal representatives of the deceased. The court upheld the income assessment and dismissed the appeal filed by Balwinder Singh. The court partly allowed the appeal of the respondents and modified the award to include compensation for loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral charges, and parental consortium.
Issues: The issues included the assessment of income and loss of dependency, the liability to pay compensation to legal representatives, and the entitlement to compensation under various heads. The court also addressed the power of an appellate court to make additional awards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of legal provisions related to compensation under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the assessment of income and loss of dependency, and the entitlement of legal representatives to claim compensation. The court also relied on principles established in previous judgments to determine the compensation under various heads.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by Balwinder Singh and partly allowed the appeal of the respondents, modifying the award to include compensation for loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral charges, and parental consortium.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J. - Above captioned appeals emanate from Award dated 8.2.2019, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing claim petition filed under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, 'Act') having been filed by claimants i.e. appellants in FAO(MVA) No. 494 of 2019, held Balvinder Singh, appellant in FAO(MVA) No. 188 of 2019, (owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HP-20C-5969) liable to pay Rs.3,85,000/- alongwith interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, to the claimants in equal shares, on account of death of late Karam Chand in road accident.
2. Former appeal i.e. FAO No. 188 of 2019 has been filed by Balvinder Singh, owner of offending vehicle bearing registration No. HP-26C-5969, for setting aside impugned Award, inasmuch as he has been held liable to pay compensation, whereas, latter appeal i.e. FAO No. 494 of 2019 has been preferred by Vijay Kumar and Saroj Kumari, claimants, for enhancement of the compensation.
3. Parties are referred to as per their status in the FAO(MVA) No. 188 of 2019, for the sake of convenience.
4. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter, 'claimants') filed a claim petition before learned Tribunal below, under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying therein for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.50.00 Lakh on account of death of late Shri Karam Chand, in a roadside accident, claiming themselves to be the dependents and legal heirs of the deceased. It transpires from the record that on 22.7.2017, deceased was traveling on his scooty bearing registration No. HP-80-0403 from village Pandoga towards his house. At about 2.15 pm when deceased reached main road from link road, a car bearing registration No. HP-20C-5969, being driven by respondent No.4, Akash Kumar, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooty of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell on the road. Though the deceased was shifted to RH Una, immediately after accident, but he unfortunately died on the same day. As per claimants, deceased remained in hospital on 22.7.2017 and they spent Rs.50,000/- on his medical treatment and last rites. Accident is alleged to have taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by respondent No.4 Claimants claimed before learned Tribunal below that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and as such on account of his demise, claimants have suffered huge financial loss and as such, they deserve to be compensated.
5. Respondent/Claimant No.1 averred in the petition that he was living with the deceased and also contributed to the income of family being one of the earning members, whereas, petitioner No.2 is married but she was also supported and provided gifts on the occasions of festivals by the deceased Karam Chand. Claimants claimed before learned Tribunal below that sudden demise has brought an unbridgeable gulf in their lives and as such, they deserve compensation to the tune of 50.00 Lakh on account loss of future prospects, estate and love and affection and on account of funeral expenses.
6. Aforesaid claim of the claimants came to be resisted on behalf of appellant and respondent No. 4, who happen to be the owner and driver, respectively of the offending vehicle on the ground that a false FIR has been registered against them for claiming compensation. Aforesaid persons stated before learned Tribunal below that vehicle bearing registration No. HP-25C-5969 is not involved in the accident and at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was not being driven by respondent No.4. Besides this, aforesaid persons submitted before learned Tribunal below that the petitioners are having inimical relations with them, as such, claimants after deliberation got recorded false FIR and got involved their car in the incident.
7. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company, insurer of the vehicle involved in the acciden
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
