Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12642
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
OMANA – Appellant
Versus
SHAIBU P.S – Respondent
MACA 3165 2009
SMT.DEEPA GEORGE, SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA
The determination of compensation must align with principles of fairness, reasonableness, and legal standards, particularly in cases of fatal accidents involving dependents.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act - [Sec. 166, 168] - The court redefined the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, emphasizing the concepts of 'just compensation' and the necessity to consider various legal precedents in determining reasonable compensation for dependents of the deceased.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a claim for compensation following the death of their relative in a vehicular accident caused by the negligent driving of the first respondent, leading to a partial award from the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the Tribunal's award and deemed the quantum of compensation awarded insufficient. It relied on Supreme Court precedents to re-evaluate the notional income, multiplier, and heads of compensation, resulting in a significant enhancement.
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was fair, reasonable, and sufficient based on the legal standards for determining compensation in motor vehicle accidents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that just compensation must be assessed based on fairness and reasonableness, and redefined multiple heads of compensation, leading to a substantial increase in the total awarded amount.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed with an enhancement of compensation by Rs.5,31,625/-.
JUDGMENT
The appellants were the petitioners 1 to 4 in OP (MV)362/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda. The fifth petitioner in the claim petition had expired during the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents in the claim petition. Pursuant to the orders of this Court on 30.3.2021 in IA 411/2018, the second respondent was deleted from the party array. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.
2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'), claiming compensation on account of the death of Vasu (deceased) – the husband of the first petitioner, father of the petitioners 2 and 3 and son of the fourth petitioner. The deceased fifth petitioner was the father of Vasu.
3. The concise case of the petitioners, relevant for the determination of the appeal, is: on 14.12.2004, while the deceased was travelling in a tempo van bearing registration No.KL-8/M 3670, a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-7/J 466 (offending vehicle) driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and hit the tempo van. The deceased sustained serious injuries and was admitted as inpatient at Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and, thereafter, at the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. However, he lost his life on 24.12.2004. The deceased was a construction worker and earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. The petitioners were the dependents of the deceased. The offending vehicle was owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent. The respondents 4 to 6 were the driver, owner and insurer of the tempo van in which the deceased was travelling. The petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents.
4. The respondents 1, 4 and 6 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex parte.
5. The second respondent filed a written statement admitting that the mini lorry belonged to a partnership firm in which he was a partner and that the vehicle was insured with the third respondent.
6. The third respondent filed a written statement admitting that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance coverage, but contended that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the fourth respondent, who drove the tempo van in a rash manner. It was also contended that the second respondent did not produce the documents of the vehicle for perusal.
7. Even though the fifth respondent entered appearance, no written statement was filed on her behalf.
8. The petitioners marked Exts A1 to A9 and the third respondent marked Ext B1 in evidence.
9. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioners to realise an amount of Rs.3,32,800/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with proportionate costs. The third respondent was directed to pay the compensation amount.
10. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners are in appeal.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent – the Insurance Company.
12. The sole question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just.
13. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ], has held that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , deals with the concept of 'just compensation', and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability.
14. Ext A2
