Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11757
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J
THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ – Appellant
Versus
VASANTHA – Respondent
MACA/968/2014
SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH, SRI.LAL GEORGE, SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL
Compensation for motor vehicle accident victims must adhere to standardized principles ensuring fairness and reasonable assessments of dependency and personal living expenses.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act - [Sections 166, 168] - The Court clarified that the determination of 'just compensation' for victims of motor accidents must align with principles of fairness, reasonableness, and equity, emphasizing standardized calculation methods for loss of dependency, future prospects, and personal living expenses.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation due to the accidental death of their family member. The deceased was reportedly killed by a negligent lorry driver, prompting the claim for Rs.15,00,000.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found that the accident was caused by negligent driving and awarded Rs.12,78,944 in compensation. The appeals challenged both the amount and principles applied in determining compensation, particularly for loss of dependency and other related claims.
Issues: Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal represented just and reasonable compensation according to established legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi: Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act should be grounded in principles that reflect fair, equitable, and reasonable assessments, employing a standardized method for calculations regarding dependency and personal expenses.
Final Decision: The total compensation awarded was recalibrated to Rs.11,12,341, accommodating adjustments for excess payments and applying established legal formulas.
JUDGMENT
The appellants in M.A.C.A.No.1513 of 2014 are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.185 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The appellant in M.A.C.A.No.968 of 2014 is the 3rd respondent insurer in that claim petition. Since common issues are raised, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in M.A.C.A.No.1513 of 2014.
2. The appellants in M.A.C.A.No.1513 of 2014 are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.185 of 2010, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Gangadharan, husband of the 1st appellant, father of appellants 2 to 4 and son of the 5th appellant in a motor accident which occurred on 26.06.2009, while he was walking along the side of a public road. At the place of accident, he was knock down by a lorry bearing registration No.KA-01/A-6136, owned by the 1st respondent, driven by the 2nd respondent, and insured with the 3rd respondent (the appellant in M.A.C.A. No.968 of 2014). In the accident, he sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on the date of accident itself. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 2nd respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under various heads.
3. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained absent and he was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent did not file any written statement. The 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting the policy coverage of the lorry involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the driver of that vehicle. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition and it was contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.
4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claimants. An officer of the Southern Railway was examined as PW1. A copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ext.B1 on the side of the respondents. The document marked as Ext.X1 is the Last Pay Certificate issued by Southern Railway and Ext.X2 is the Service Certificate, which were marked through PW1.
5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 2nd respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the 3rd respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,78,944/- together with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of petition, till realisation, with proportionate cost and directed the 3rd respondent insurer to satisfy the award. The amount of compensation was ordered to be apportioned among the claimants, as stated in paragraph 11 of the award.
6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, the claimants are before this Court in M.A.C.A. No.1513 of 2014.
7. The 3rd respondent insurer has filed M.A.C.A. No.968 of 2014, by contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are on the higher side, especially the dependency compensation awarded without adopting split multiplier.
8. On 27.05.2014, when M.A.C.A. No.968 of 2014 came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. This Court granted an interim stay in I.A. No.1166 of 2014, as prayed for, on condition that the appellant insurer deposit 50% of the award amount before the Tribunal within six weeks from that date.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/
claimants in M.A.C.A. No.1513 of 2014 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent insurer (the appellant in M.A.C.A. No.968 of 2014).
10. The issue that arises for consideration in this app
