Case Title – THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI THR. MUMBAI LEGAL HUB V. VIVEK NIWAS PATIL AND ANR.
Case No. – Civil Appeal FA/168/2024
Decided by – High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Dated on – 1st October, 2024
Quorum – Hon’ble Justice M. M. Sathaye
Background of the Case:
Herein, in the case, there had been an appeal from the Order delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, of Alibaug, to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, wherein, it was challenged that, the decision of the tribunal on compensating for the wrongful death of Deepali, the wife of the 1st Respondent (Claimant) was not correct. The Appeal had been filed by the Appellant, who is the Insurance Company, under §173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Facts of the Case:
With regard to the facts of the case, it had started on the 4th of March, 2017, when Deepali, a 27-year old woman, employed as a Professor at the Singhad Institution of Technology and earning Rs. 55, 979 per month, was riding a pillion on a scooter, when a tractor had collided with her vehicle from the behind, causing severe injuries to Deepali. However, though Deepali was admitted in a hospital for treatment, she passed away away owing to the severity of the injuries caused due to the collision of the tractor. Subsequently, the Claimant filed a petition for compensation under §166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. However, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides, awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,06,94,116, thus holding clearly the insurance company jointly and severally liable along with the tractor owner.
Issues:
- Whether the Claimant can be categorised as a dependant, for the purpose of claiming compensation, given he has his own earnings and in the absence of children?
- Whether the Hill Station Allowance (HSA) and Travel Allowance (TA) received by the deceased, must be included for the purpose of calculating the income of the deceased to determine the final compensation amount?
Legal Provisions:
- Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Application for compensation
- Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Appeals
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant, who is the Insurance Company, in the present case, contended that, firstly, the Claimant himself was an earning individual, with a significant income of Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 45,000 per month, and hence, he cannot be considered as a dependant, who survives on Deepali’s earnings. Secondly, it was also argued by the Appellant that, the accident of collision between the tractor and Deepali’s Vehicle had occurred due to the Claimant’s own negligence while riding the vehicle, and not due to the tractor driver’s actions. Thirdly, it was submitted by the Appellant that there was a breach of the insurance policy conditions due to the negligence in driving by Deepali, and further, it was stated by the Insurance Company, that since both the spouses had shared the living expenses, not 1/3rd of deduction but instead a 2/3rd deduction must be made, making only 1/3rd of the deceased’s income to be considered as compensation for dependency. It also pointed out that the expenses including Hill Station Allowance, Travel Allowance and so on, should not be included under the income calculation of the deceased.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the Respondent, in the present case, contended that, despite his own earnings, he was nevertheless dependent on his wife’s income, thus justifying his claim for compensation. Further, he also argued by citing judgements including Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, that, 1/3rd of deduction is to be applied as deduction for personal expenses of the deceased, and not 2/3rd of the amount. Additionally, it was also submitted that, the allowances including Hill Station Allowance and Travel Allowance must be included as part of the calculation of the deceased’s income.
Court Analysis and Judgement:
With respect to the analysis of the Court in this case, herein, it was firstly observed that, the Claimant was earning as much as equivalent to that of Deepali, and further in the absence of any children, he could not be categorised as a dependant. Secondly, with regard to the income calculations of the deceased, the Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal stating that, Deepali’s monthly income must be determined, however, after making certain adjustments to the same. Further, it also noted that the aforementioned Hill Station allowances were connected to the concept of family welfare and hence must not be deducted. But, the Travel Allowance was permitted to be excluded as the same was solely provided for covering the travel expenses of the deceased.
With respect to the same, the Court took into consideration the case of N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., wherein similar ruling was given. Therefore, in conclusion, it was held that the proper deduction for personal expenses would be that of 2/3rd, as both the spouses had shared the living expenses in the absence of children. Also, adjusting the Travel Allowance, and applying the 2/3rd deduction ruled, the final compensation was to be amounted at Rs. 52,59,658, including the expenses of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. This Compensation was to be claimed by the Respondent (Claimant) jointly and severally from the Appellant (Insurance Company) and the owner of the Tractor, along with an interest @ 9% from the date of claim application, until realisation of the amount.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By – Thanuja Anthiyur Aravindan
