Delhi Court Reduces Compensation in Fatal Motor Accident Claim Due to Contributory Negligence of Unlicensed Minor
Case title: SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS
Case no.: MAC.APP. 992/2017
Dated on: 22nd May 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The deceased-Kunal aged about 15 years, who was driving a Scooty bearing registration No. DL4SCD 9679, that was involved in an accident on 07.05.2016 at about 01:00 P.M., when he was hit by a TATA Truck-407 bearing registration No. DL-1LT-6310 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’ for brevity) driven by respondent No.3/Chhote Lal, which was owned by respondent No.4/Ravinder Singh and duly insured for third party risks with the appellant/insurance company. The learned Tribunal vide issue No.1 found that the driver of the offending vehicle was at fault and it was his rash and negligent driving that led to the accident resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased-Kunal and thus, the claim petition filed by the claimants parents was allowed and the aforementioned compensation has been awarded to them. The impugned judgment-cum-award dated 04.09.2017 has been assailed in the present appeal, upon which, vide order dated 04.10.2018, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was ordered to be released to the claimants-parents without prejudice.
ISSUE
- Whether or not the driver of the offending vehicle was at fault?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This act governs various aspects related to motor vehicles, including licensing, insurance, and liability in case of accidents.
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act: This section deals with the application for compensation arising out of accidents by victims or their legal representatives.
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act: This section pertains to appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Mr. Sameer Nandwani, learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company urged that the impugned judgment-cum-award is not sustainable on facts and law since the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased was 15 years of age and he did not have a valid driving license to drive a Scooty on a public road and he was not even wearing a Helmet. It was further submitted that even the registered owner of the Scooty, who is the respondent No.4 in the present appeal, was not made a party to the claim petition and that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the issue of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Mr. Ghanshyam Thakur, learned counsel for the claimants-parents urged that there was a categorical finding by the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, resulting into fatal injuries to the deceased, and thus, there arose no question of fastening the deceased with any fault.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The appellant/insurance company has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 04.09.2017, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (West-01), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the claim petition under Section 166/140 of the MV Act filed by the parents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘claimants-parents’) of the deceased boy-Kunal, who was aged about 15 years, was allowed and they have been granted a total compensation of Rs. 10,19,640/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The learned Tribunal vide issue No.1 found that the driver of the offending vehicle was at fault and it was his rash and negligent driving that led to the accident resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased-Kunal and thus, the claim petition filed by the claimants parents was allowed and the aforementioned compensation has been awarded to them. A careful perusal of the aforesaid reasoning given by the learned Tribunal would show that it relied upon the testimony of PW 2, who was a pillion rider on the Scooty at the time of the accident, who testified that he, along with the deceased-Kunal, had gone to purchase some cold drinks and when they reached Paschimpuri Chowk, New Delhi, the deceased took a turn towards the right with due care and caution when all of a sudden, the offending vehicle which was coming from the side of Paschim Vihar, driven at a fast pace and in a rash and negligent manner, hit their Scooty with great force and due to the heavy impact, they fell on the road and received serious injuries. In his cross-examination, PW-2 for the first time volunteered that the offending vehicle had hit their Scooty after jumping the red light, but then he also testified that he could not see the offending vehicle prior to the accident. However, he acknowledged the fact that the deceased was not wearing a Helmet at the time of the accident. A bald suggestion was given in the cross examination of PW-2 that it was the deceased who was guilty of negligence but without elaborating how or in what manner. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no gainsaying that the deceased was not possessing a valid driving license and he was also not wearing a Helmet, which might have saved his life. All said and done, while the evidence on the record does attribute some degree of fault on the part of the deceased too, this Court understands that children are children and they would at times drive around motor vehicles despite having no driving license, but then, it is the paramount duty of the parents to rein them and see that they do no perform such audacious acts which amounts to a violation of the law. Although unfortunately, a teenage life was lost at the age of 15 years, which must have caused a degree of pain and anguish to the claimants-parents, but then, it was their responsibility alone to teach their son and instill in him the respect for the law of the land. In view of the above discussion, attributing some contributory negligence on the part of the deceased too, the total amount of compensation should be reduced by 50%. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,19,640/- from the date of filing of the DAR9 / claim petition i.e. 14.09.2016 till realization. In view of this Court, it would be appropriate to award the compensation assessed as per the parameters laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi10. During the relevant time, the minimum wages for a non-matriculate were Rs.10,582/- per month. Thus, assuming the notional income of the deceased boy to be Rs. 10,582/- plus enhancing the same by 40% towards loss of future prospects, the annual notional income comes to Rs. 1,77,778/-. Since the deceased was a boy aged about 15 years, 1/2nd is to be deducted towards personal use and living expenses. Further, considering that the deceased-Kunal was 15 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of is applied as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC11. Thus, total loss of financial dependency would come to Rs.16,00,002/-. Further, Rs.40,000/- is to be awarded to each of the parents towards loss of consortium besides Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation works out to be Rs.17,10,002/-. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant/ insurance company towards statutory deposit for filing of the instant appeal be released in their favour. The present appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
“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 – HARIRAGHAVA JP
Click here to read the judgement
