P&H HC Raises Crash-Victim’s Family Compensation To ₹39.07 Lakh, Grants Consortium To All 5 Dependants

In brief

The question

1. Whether the eyewitness’s account of the accident could be relied upon, or was liable to be rejected as the testimony of a planted witness.

The court held

The Court modified the award, increasing total compensation from ₹37,05,800 to ₹39,07,100. The claimants were awarded the differential amount of ₹2,01,300, with interest at the Tribunal’s rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realization.

It also directed

Both appeals were disposed of, and the differential amount with interest was directed to be paid within six weeks.

01Facts

The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of Gulab in a collision involving the car in which he was travelling, an insured car, and a canter.

pp. 2–4

The Tribunal found the insured car’s driver negligent and awarded ₹37,05,800 with 7.5% interest, holding the driver, owner and insurer jointly and severally liable.

pp. 2–4, 7

The claimants appealed seeking enhancement; the insurer appealed disputing the accident evidence and contending that the award was excessive.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 11

02Issues

i.1. Whether the eyewitness’s account of the accident could be relied upon, or was liable to be rejected as the testimony of a planted witness.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 13–14.3

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation required interference, including its assessment of income, future prospects, multiplier, personal-expense deduction and conventional heads.

pp. 6–7, 12–13 · ¶ 15–15.1, 20–20.3

03Law Applied

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor accident.

¶ 2

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, future prospects are added to established income according to the deceased’s age and employment status; the multiplier is selected by reference to the deceased’s age; and conventional heads include loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses, with the prescribed amounts enhanced by 10% every three years.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 19.1

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, as approved in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, guides deductions for personal and living expenses by reference to the number of dependent family members.

pp. 9–11 · ¶ 19.2–19.3

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram recognises spousal, parental and filial consortium, while United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur holds that loss of love and affection is included in consortium and is not a separate head of compensation.

pp. 11–12 · ¶ 19.4–19.5

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the insurer’s challenge to the eyewitness evidence. The witness’s account was consistent with the FIR, and the fact that he had been about half a kilometre behind the car did not make it impossible for him to witness the accident; travelling at 50 km/h, he could cover that distance in approximately 36 seconds.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 14.1–14.3

On quantum, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s reliance on Gulab’s income-tax return, fixing annual income at ₹2,16,000, and affirmed the 40% addition for future prospects, multiplier of 16 and one-fourth deduction for personal expenses.

pp. 12–13 · ¶ 20–20.1

It nevertheless enhanced the conventional heads: loss of estate and funeral expenses were each increased to ₹18,150, and consortium was fixed at ₹48,400 for each of five dependents, totalling ₹2,42,000.

p. 13 · ¶ 20.2–20.3