The insurer is obligated to satisfy the compensation award to third-party victims first and subsequently recover the amount from the vehicle owner in cases of policy breach, following the 'pay and recover' doctrine.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellants–claimants challenging the Award dated 13.04.2018 passed in M.V.O.P. No.439 of 2014 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad, insofar as it relates to the quantum of compensation awarded and the fastening of liability solely on the owner of the offending vehicle, for the death of the deceased J. Vinod in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2014, while the deceased, aged about 19–20 years, was travelling in a van bearing No.AP-01-X-8807, the driver of the said vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and lost control, resulting in the vehicle falling into a ditch, causing the death of the deceased on the spot. The appellants–claimants, being the parents of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment/realisation. However, the Tribunal exonerated respondent No.2–Insurance Company on the ground that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger in violation of policy conditions. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants–claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and for fastening liability on the insurer by applying the principle of “pay and recover”.

3. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of respondent No.2–Insurance Company, and perused the record.

4. At the outset, insofar as the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence is concerned, the same is based on cogent evidence, including Ex.A4–charge sheet and the testimony of PW.2, an eye-witness to the occurrence. The said finding has attained finality, as there is no serious challenge to the same.

5. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the deceased was aged about 19–20 years and was stated to be working as a coolie. In the absence of documentary proof, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is reasonable having regard to the year of accident (2014). By adding future prospects and deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses, as the deceased was a bachelor, the annual contribution to the family was determined. Applying the appropriate multiplier of ‘18’, considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.4,86,000/-. On re-appreciation, this Court finds that the said computation is in accordance with settled principles and the amount awarded under this head is just and reasonable, warranting no interference.

6. However, the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts under the conventional heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate and transportation. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , 1(2017) 16 SCC 680, the appellants–claimants are entitled to Rs.91,000/- (Rs.70,000/- with 10% enhancement) under the conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants–claimants is re-assessed at Rs.5,77,000/- (Rs.4,86,000/- + Rs.91,000/-).

7. At this stage, it is necessary to o