Appellate court may reduce motor accident compensation upon claimant’s acceptance and insurer’s non-opposition, preserving recovery rights.

On 4 February 2021, Ananta Malik was fatally hit by Truck bearing registration No. OD-09K-2187 while travelling with his father.

His father also sustained injuries.

Following the FIR, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the truck driver under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC.

The deceased’s dependants, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack.

The Tribunal directed the insurer to pay Rs. 18,56,050 with interest at 6% per annum from 10 March 2021 until realization, while granting the insurer the right to recover the amount from the vehicle owner, Respondent No. 5.

The insurer challenged the award, ultimately confining its appeal to the quantum of compensation.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 18,56,050 required modification in the insurer’s appeal challenging the quantum of compensation?

Whether the insurer’s right to recover the compensation from the vehicle owner should remain undisturbed?

The appeal was filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an aggrieved party to challenge an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Court applied the principle recognized by the Supreme Court in Taslim Parvin & Another v. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another, 2018 (2) TAC 22 (SC), permitting resolution of a compensation appeal on the basis of a proposal accepted by the claimant and not disputed by the insurer, where such course serves the interests of justice.

The Court maintained the award of interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application and preserved the insurer’s right to recover the amount from the owner.

The High Court found no serious defect in the Tribunal’s computation of compensation.

However, considering the claimants’ immediate need for compensation, the Court proposed reducing the amount to Rs. 15,56,000.

The claimants accepted the proposal through counsel, while the insurer left the matter to the Court’s discretion.

Relying on Taslim Parvin, the Court held that the interests of justice would be served by modifying the compensation to the agreed/proposed amount, while retaining interest at 6% per annum from 10 March 2021 and leaving the insurer’s recovery rights unaffected.

The insurer was directed to deposit the modified compensation within eight weeks, after which it would be disbursed proportionately to the claimant-respondents in accordance with the Tribunal’s award.

The statutory deposit and accrued interest were directed to be refunded upon such deposit.

The Tribunal’s grant of the insurer’s right to recover the amount from Respondent No. 5, the vehicle owner, was expressly confirmed.