Insurer Fails To Prove Deceased Was Gratuitous Passenger; Jharkhand HC Raises Dependent Brother’s Compensation To ₹4.98 Lakh

On 24 September 2002, the deceased was struck and fatally injured by a tractor and trailer while walking along the road.

The claimant, his younger brother, pleaded and testified that their parents had died before the accident and that the deceased had supported him.

The MACT, Pakur awarded Rs. 2,04,000 on 24 March 2017. The insurer appealed, contending that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle.

The Court relied on Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, for the applicable multiplier and compensation under conventional heads, including loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium.

It applied Surekha v. Santosh, (2021) 16 SCC 467, for the principle that a court must award just compensation even where the claimant has not filed a cross-appeal or cross-objection.

It considered Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643, in relation to a claimant’s entitlement notwithstanding the question of dependency.

The Court also held that an insurer relying on a pleaded defence that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger must prove that defence by evidence; the judgment does not identify a specific statutory section.

The insurer had pleaded that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, but led no evidence to establish that allegation. The claimant’s evidence instead supported his account that the deceased was walking along the road when the tractor and trailer struck him; the insurer’s defence therefore failed for want of proof.

The claimant had also pleaded and proved that he depended on his deceased brother, who supported him after their parents’ deaths, so the Court found no error in recognising his entitlement.

However, the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at Rs. 1,500 was inadequate. Taking the deceased’s income at Rs. 3,000 per month, applying a 50% deduction for personal expenses, adding 40% for future prospects, using a multiplier of 17, and allowing compensation under the conventional heads, the Court assessed just compensation at Rs. 4,98,400.

It disposed of the appeal by fixing total compensation at Rs. 4,98,400, payable with interest at 6% per annum as directed in the Tribunal’s award.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount in the High Court within two months, after notifying claimant’s counsel; the statutory deposit could be adjusted. On deposit, the Registry was directed to transfer the amount to the claimant’s bank account through regular banking channels. There was no order as to costs.