Upholding Compensation in Motor Vehicle Accident Case: Delhi High Court Affirms Tribunal’s Decision.
Case title: United India Insurance Co. LTD Vs SMT Somti Devi & ORS
Case no.: MAC.APP.NO. 305 OF 2023& CM APPL. NO.42287 OF 2021 & CM APPL. NO. 42289 OF 2021
Dated on: 8th May 2024
Quorum: Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881, seeking modification of the judgment-cum-award dated 11.10.2021 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi2 in claim petition bearing MACT No. 56306/2016 titled as „Smt. Somti Devi & Ors. v. Mahender Singh & Ors.‟ Rishipal Singh aged about 32 years sustained fatal injuries in a motor accident on 03.11.2014 that occurred at about 1.30 p.m. near Gate No.4 of Metro Station, Kashmere Gate, Delhi when TSR3 No. DL-1RL-2032, in which he was travelling, driven by its driver dashed against a parked DTC4 bus bearing registration No. DL-1PB-1506 (hereinafter referred as the ‘offending vehicle’) against its front right side tyre portion. The claimants, who are the wife, four children and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act against the respondent No.1/driver and the registered owner/respondent No.2 of the offending bus. While the offending vehicle, which was evidently insured with the respondent No.3, the TSR was not insured for third party risks. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed common written statement and inter alia took a preliminary objection that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle but on the part of the driver of the ill-fated TSR. Learned Tribunal decided the issue as regard the factum of accident and the culpability, is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.” As the fatal accident has arisen out of the use of offending
vehicle, accordingly, as per Second Schedule annexed to M. V. Act, as amended up to date, compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- is admissible to the petitioners. The petitioners are also entitled to be granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Each of the petitioners is also entitled to be granted a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards consortium (spousal, parental and filial as the case may be). The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 7,70,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) (Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/+Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/-) on account of the untimely death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident dated 03.11.2014.”
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent.
Section 163A of the MV Act, 1988: Provides for compensation to the victim/applicant/claimant in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Such compensation shall be paid by the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer of the motor vehicle that caused such accident.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The learned counsels for the rival parties and on perusal of the record including the digitized Trial Court Record, although the plea raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company that there was no fault on the part of the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident is clearly borne out from the record, but it does not cut any ice when it comes to the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act. The aforesaid decisions make it quite clear that Parliament by introducing Section 163-A in the MVA provided for payment of compensation on structured formula basis by mandating that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer would be liable to pay compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be in a claim made under sub-section (1) of Section 163-A of the MVA. In order to prove a claim of this nature the claimant would not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. the aforesaid proposition of law, reverting to the instant matter, the offending vehicle presumably was being plied before the accident and at the time of accident it was parked in a public place6 and the same was accordingly in „use‟ in the context of the MV Act.
The claimants are made entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,70,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 13.11.2014 till realization, which be deposited with the learned Tribunal within four weeks from today, failing which the appellant/insurance company shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this judgment till realization The observations which have been spelled out by the learned Tribunal in this regard cannot be faulted in law. In other words, the wrong manner of the parking of the offending bus at a public place would also be sufficient to impute “use” of the vehicle on the road. By virtue of section 163A of the MV Act, the claimants are not enjoined upon to prove any culpability of the driver of the offending bus either. The present appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company is dismissed, The present appeal along with the pending applications stands disposed of.
“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.”
Upholding Compensation in Motor Vehicle Accident Case: Delhi High Court Affirms Tribunal’s Decision.
Case title: United India Insurance Co. LTD Vs SMT Somti Devi & ORS
Case no.: MAC.APP.NO. 305 OF 2023& CM APPL. NO.42287 OF 2021 & CM APPL. NO. 42289 OF 2021
Dated on: 8th May 2024
Quorum: Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881, seeking modification of the judgment-cum-award dated 11.10.2021 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi2 in claim petition bearing MACT No. 56306/2016 titled as „Smt. Somti Devi & Ors. v. Mahender Singh & Ors.‟ Rishipal Singh aged about 32 years sustained fatal injuries in a motor accident on 03.11.2014 that occurred at about 1.30 p.m. near Gate No.4 of Metro Station, Kashmere Gate, Delhi when TSR3 No. DL-1RL-2032, in which he was travelling, driven by its driver dashed against a parked DTC4 bus bearing registration No. DL-1PB-1506 (hereinafter referred as the ‘offending vehicle’) against its front right side tyre portion. The claimants, who are the wife, four children and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act against the respondent No.1/driver and the registered owner/respondent No.2 of the offending bus. While the offending vehicle, which was evidently insured with the respondent No.3, the TSR was not insured for third party risks. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed common written statement and inter alia took a preliminary objection that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle but on the part of the driver of the ill-fated TSR. Learned Tribunal decided the issue as regard the factum of accident and the culpability, is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.” As the fatal accident has arisen out of the use of offending
vehicle, accordingly, as per Second Schedule annexed to M. V. Act, as amended up to date, compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- is admissible to the petitioners. The petitioners are also entitled to be granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Each of the petitioners is also entitled to be granted a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards consortium (spousal, parental and filial as the case may be). The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 7,70,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) (Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/+Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/-) on account of the untimely death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident dated 03.11.2014.”
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent.
Section 163A of the MV Act, 1988: Provides for compensation to the victim/applicant/claimant in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Such compensation shall be paid by the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer of the motor vehicle that caused such accident.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The learned counsels for the rival parties and on perusal of the record including the digitized Trial Court Record, although the plea raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company that there was no fault on the part of the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident is clearly borne out from the record, but it does not cut any ice when it comes to the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act. The aforesaid decisions make it quite clear that Parliament by introducing Section 163-A in the MVA provided for payment of compensation on structured formula basis by mandating that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer would be liable to pay compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be in a claim made under sub-section (1) of Section 163-A of the MVA. In order to prove a claim of this nature the claimant would not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. the aforesaid proposition of law, reverting to the instant matter, the offending vehicle presumably was being plied before the accident and at the time of accident it was parked in a public place6 and the same was accordingly in „use‟ in the context of the MV Act.
The claimants are made entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,70,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 13.11.2014 till realization, which be deposited with the learned Tribunal within four weeks from today, failing which the appellant/insurance company shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this judgment till realization The observations which have been spelled out by the learned Tribunal in this regard cannot be faulted in law. In other words, the wrong manner of the parking of the offending bus at a public place would also be sufficient to impute “use” of the vehicle on the road. By virtue of section 163A of the MV Act, the claimants are not enjoined upon to prove any culpability of the driver of the offending bus either. The present appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company is dismissed, The present appeal along with the pending applications stands disposed of.
“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
