Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 83152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SUCHITHRA – Respondent
MACA NO. 1932 OF 2012|MACA NO. 2789 OF 2012|OPMV NO. 1694 OF 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.LAL GEORGE SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000)
For the Respondents: SRI.R.NIKHIL, SRI.R.MOHANA BABU, SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW, SRI.R.REJI, SRI.SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000)
In motor accident claims, when both drivers contribute equally to an accident, liability must be equitably shared; an insurer cannot be held liable for compensating the deceased insured.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Appellant and respondent's claims arose from a common accident involving a car and motorcycle - The Tribunal found equal contributory negligence of both drivers at 25%, leading to a void for remaining liability - The liability was incorrectly imposed on the insurer of the car - Court invoked supervisory powers to rectify inherent defects, ultimately apportioning equal contributory negligence of 50% to each driver, exonerating the car's insurer and holding the motorcycle’s insurer liable for 50% of compensation. (Paras 1, 3, 10-14)
(B) Contributory Negligence - When both parties are found equally at fault for an accident, liability must be shared equally, rather than creating a gap in liability. The court corrected the tribunal's misallocation of negligence percentages. (Paras 8, 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The accident resulted in the death of one Jayakrishnan, with both drivers contributing to the fatality. The appellants sought Rs.4 Lakhs in compensation for the deceased Jayakrishnan. The insurance companies disputed liability while the compensation quantum was challenged.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's decision was plagued with defects regarding contributory negligence and responsibility; the shares were corrected to establish proper liability allocation.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of assigning liability and the impact of contributory negligence findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court stated it is improper to impose liability on an insurer for the insured’s death and rectified the liability to reflect equal contributions to the accident without leaving a gap in the liability.
Result: Appeals disposed of with apportionment of negligence and exoneration of the car's insurer.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the accident and claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. parties' arguments regarding contributory negligence. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on contributory negligence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. final decisions and orders on liability and compensation. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT
[MACA Nos.1932/2012, 2789/2012]
Both these appeals are arising from an award passed by the
1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam in OP(MV) No.1694/2007. The said claim petition was filed by the appellants in M.A.C.A No.2789/2012, seeking compensation for the death of one Jayakrishnan in a motor accident that occurred on 15.11.2005. (For convenience, the parties herein are referred to as their respective ranks in the claim petition).
2. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred, when the Maruti car driven by the deceased Jayakrishnan collided with a motorcycle ridden by one Shanhir. Due to the injuries sustained, the said Jayakrishnan as well as the said Shanhir, the rider of the motorcycle, died. The Police registered a crime against the deceased Jayakrishnan and later filed an abated final report before the jurisdictional court. According to the appellants, the deceased was aged 31 and was working as an AC mechanic. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances seeking a total compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased rider of the motorcycle. The 4th respondent was the mother of the deceased Jayakrishnan, 5th respondent was the insurer of the car and 6th respondent was the insurer of the motorcycle. The coverage of policy in respect of the Maruti car is admitted by the 5th respondent insurance company and the coverage of policy in respect of the motorcycle is admitted by the 6th respondent insurance company. However both of them disputed the liability on various grounds. The negligence of the respective drivers was also disputed by them and the quantum of compensation claimed was also challenged.
4. Another OP(MV) No.26/2007, which arose from the very same accident filed by the legal heirs of the deceased rider of the motorcycle, was tried along with this claim petition and disposed of by a common order.
5. The evidence in these cases consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A19 from the side of the claimants. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the Maruti car have contributed to the accident equally and their respective contributions were fixed as 25% each. As the quantum of compensation, the tribunal fixed Rs.5,80,000/- and the 5th respondent herein, insurer of the car, was directed to deposit 75% of the said amount after deducting the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
M.A.C.A.No.2789/2012 was filed by the claimants challenging the finding of contributory negligence whereas M.A.C.A.No.1932/2012 was filed by the 5th respondent/Insurance Company challenging the liability imposed upon them.
7. Heard Sri.R.Nikhil, the learned counsel for the claimants, Sri.Sebastian Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, Sri.R.Mohana Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and Sri.P. Jacob Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent.
8. The main question that arises for consideration in this appeal is with respect to the contributory negligence found upon the driver of the Maruti car and also the liability imposed upon the 5th respondent to satisfy the award. While considering the question of contributory negligence, one crucial aspect to be noticed is that, the award under challenge was a common award passed in OP(MV)No.1694/2007 which is under challenge in this appeal and OP(MV) No.26/2007 wherein the 5th respondent herein was directed to deposit 75% of the award passed in
