Back
2023 Supreme(J&K) 482
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
Pehyush Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Ashwani Kumar and Others – Respondents
M.A. No. 159 of 2018, C.M. No. 7752 of 2019, I.A. No. 1 of 2018, CCROS No. 19 of 2018
Decided On : 25-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Raghu Mehta, Nigam Mehta.
For the Respondents: R.K. Bhatia, C.S. Gupta.
The acquittal of the driver in a criminal case does not absolve the owner from liability in a motor accident case, and the notional income for determining compensation should be in accordance with relevant legal precedents.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Section 3/181 MV Act - Section 279/304-A RPC - Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act - Section 279/304-A of the Ranbir Penal Code
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation for the death of a 12-year-old in a motor vehicular accident. The appellant and the claimants challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Samba.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the award passed by the Tribunal, with a modification in the heads under which compensation was payable.
Issues: The issues included the negligence of the driver, validity of driving license, liability of the insurance company, and the quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquittal of the driver in a criminal case does not absolve the owner from liability in a motor accident case. It also clarified the notional income to be considered for determining compensation.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was upheld with modifications in the heads under which compensation was payable.
JUDGMENT :
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
1. The appellant i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle and also the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (claimants in CCROS No. 19/2018) have impugned the award dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Samba (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) whereby respondent No. 4-Insurance Company has been directed to satisfy the award passed in favour of the claimants with liberty to recover the awarded amount from the appellant.
2. The appellant-owner has impugned the award that the liberty granted to the respondent No. 4 to recover the compensation from the appellant, after paying to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3, is not in accordance with law. The appellant-owner has also impugned the award on the ground that the findings of the criminal investigation are not binding on the Tribunal and are not sufficient to prove the negligence of the driver in the claim proceedings and the Insurance Company is under legal obligation to prove the negligence and breach of the policy by the owner to absolve itself from its statutory liability to satisfy the award. The appellant has also urged that the compensation under certain heads vis-a-vis “Loss of Love and Affection” and “Non-pecuniary” could not have been awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have impugned the award only on the ground that just compensation has not been awarded to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
4. Mr. Raghu Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant-owner would submit that the learned Tribunal has simply relied upon the charge sheet produced against the respondent No. 5 and has returned a finding that the vehicle was being driven by the driver, who was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged occurrence. He would further submit that respondent No. 4 has not led any evidence in order to prove the issue Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Mehta vehemently argued that once the claimants had sought compensation on the basis of notional income of the deceased, no further enhancement can be sought by them. He lastly submits that respondent No. 5 stands acquitted, as such, alleged negligence of the respondent No. 5 stands disproved by the criminal court and the offences under section 279/304-A RPC r/w section 3/181 MV Act were not proved against the respondent No. 5.
5. Per contra, Mr. R.K. Bhatia, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Others, AIR 2020 SC 776, to substantiate his contention that notional income as mentioned in the judgment was required to be considered for the purpose of determining the compensation.
6. Mr. C.S. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has also placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Pappu and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 and Rishi Pal Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2022 ACJ 1868.
7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. Respondent No. 1 being father, respondent No. 2 being mother and respondent No. 3 being brother of the deceased, namely, Ashutosh Sharma, who was 12 years of age and died in a motor vehicular accident on 30.09.2010, filed a claim petition for grant of compensation. In the claim petition, it was pleaded by the claimants that the monthly income of the deceased be considered as Rs. 15,000/- per annum as per schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act. Notice was issued to the appellant/owner and to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The appellant and the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 filed the objections to the claim petition.
9. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:
1. Whether deceased Ashutosh Sharma S/o Ashwani Sharma R/o Smailpur Tehsil and Distr
