Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 1439
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI, J
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD. DIPAKBHAI CHUNILAL SONCHHATRA – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1755 of 2012
The court upheld the principle of just compensation, confirming the link between accident injuries and death, and allowed enhancement of compensation for loss of consortium despite no cross-appeal.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Appeal against the award of compensation for death resulting from a road accident - The deceased was injured in an accident and subsequently died after being in a vegetative state - The tribunal attributed 20% negligence to the deceased and 80% to the other vehicle - The court upheld the tribunal's finding that the death was caused by the accident injuries, supported by medical evidence - The tribunal failed to award loss of consortium, which the court rectified - The appeal by the insurance company was dismissed. (Paras 3, 6, 8)
(B) Compensation - The principle of just and fair compensation applies at every stage of proceedings, allowing the appellate court to enhance compensation even without a cross-appeal. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was involved in a road accident on 16/01/2007, resulting in severe injuries and paraplegia, leading to his death on 02/11/2011. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the MV Act.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the tribunal's finding that the deceased's death was due to the injuries sustained in the accident and awarded additional compensation for loss of consortium.
Issues: The main issues were whether the deceased's death was caused by the accident and the adequacy of the compensation awarded for loss of consortium.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that sufficient medical evidence established the link between the accident and the deceased's death, and the principle of just compensation allows for enhancement of compensation even in the absence of a cross-appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed; additional compensation awarded.
ORAL ORDER
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 3.2.2012 passed by the Learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.158 of 2007, the appellant – insurance company has filed this appeal.
2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the appellant would submit that accident took place on 16/01/2007 and deceased filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act to get the compensation as he was injured from the road accident; however he was died on 02/11/2011. He would further submit that despite the claimant failed to prove being unconscious out of the injury received from road accident till the period of his death, the learned tribunal has awarded compensation as if the deceased died out of the said road accident.
3.1 By making above submissions, he would submit to allow this appeal while granting the amount of loss of consortium to the deceased.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Jaydev Bhatt appearing for the org. claimant would submit that after 21 days of receiving injury, the deceased became paraplegic and become unconscious and turned into vegetative state and remained till his death. He would submit that such fact is proved from the medical evidence as well as the postmortem note and therefore since the fact of deceased died out of the injury received from the road accident is proved, he would submit to dismiss this appeal. However, he would submit that since learned tribunal has not granted any amount for loss of consortium, this Court may grant the same in view of decision in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., [(2017) 16 SCC 680]
5. Learned Advocate Mr.Parikh for respondent no.5 would submit that respondent no.5 – insurance company is initially held liable however after making review application it came to be exonerated from liability to pay the compensation which has attained finality. He would submit that he has nothing to argue any further.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and examined the record, what could be noticed that deceased had received severe injuries out of the road accident and filed the claim petition. However, after having long treatment and remained paraplegic, he died during pendency of the claim petition and therefore his heirs have been joined as party. The learned tribunal after appreciating the evidence attributed 20% negligence in causing the road accident to the deceased while 80% to the other errant vehicle. The contention of the learned advocate for the appellant that in absence of any evidence the claimant has failed to establish that he remained unconscious after receiving the injuries from the road accident can be met with from the fact that learned tribunal has discussed this aspect very well in its judgment and paragraph 28 deals with the same wherein it has been categorically held that from the medical evidence it reveals that there are total eight fractures and multiple fracture of ribs to the deceased, as also as per the Cityscan report, there was hemorrhage contusion. Thus, the patient became totally paraplegic and remained in vegetative condition. All these facts can be further proved from the evidence of Dr.Jogani examined at Exh.62. The Disability Certificate produced at Exh.60 also records 90% permanent disability. It also records that he is unconscious and persistent vegetative state. The MRI report produced at Exh.100 also records cerbral atrophic changes with diffuse hyperintensity and cerebellar and brainstrem atrophic changes. To be noted further that PM note produced at Exh.98 also supports the medical condition of the deceased and thus in the opinion of this Court, sufficient evidence was led before the learned tribunal to establish that deceased was died due to the injury received by him out of the road accident. This Court is in complete agreement with the finding arrived at b
