Failure to Provide Section 134(c) Notice is Not Fatal as the Provision is Directory in Nature

On October 27, 2019, Jaleshwar Anant died after his Omni Car was hit by a Tractor (CG-07-NA-2942) driven by Respondent No. 3.

The parents of the deceased (Claimants/Respondents 1 & 2) filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bemetara, awarded Rs. 47,74,000/- with 6% interest.

The Insurance Company appealed, contending that the driver failed to provide statutory notice under Section 134(c) of the Act and lacked a valid license.

The claimants filed a cross-appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for loss of consortium.

1. Whether the failure to comply with the notice requirement under Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is fatal to the claim or absolves the insurer of liability.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium was adequate given the number of dependents.

The court primarily applied Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which creates an obligation on the driver to provide insurance particulars and accident details to the insurer.

The court applied the principle that Section 134(c) is directory rather than mandatory in nature.

Regarding compensation, the court relied on the established legal principle that each dependent (in this case, both parents) is entitled to a separate sum for loss of consortium, typically quantified at Rs. 40,000/- per person plus accruals/adjustments.

The court rejected the Insurance Company’s technical objection regarding Section 134(c).

It reasoned that once the insurance company received notice of the claim proceedings, it had the opportunity to gather all necessary information through the Tribunal.

Since the company failed to examine any witness to prove that the lack of prior notice prejudiced their defense, the directory nature of the provision did not warrant setting aside the award.

Regarding the cross-appeal, the court found the Tribunal’s award of a consolidated Rs. 40,000/- for consortium to be insufficient.

Since there were two claimants (the parents), the court applied the law that each is entitled to individual compensation for loss of consortium.

The court held that non-compliance with Section 134(c) does not invalidate a claim if the insurer had the means to defend the case during trial.

The court enhanced the compensation for loss of consortium from a lump sum to Rs. 48,000/- for each parent (totaling Rs. 96,000/-), directing the appellant to pay the enhanced amount with 6% interest per annum within 60 days.