Pillion Rider Dies In Crash Into Parked Fire Van; Orissa HC Rejects Motorcycle Insurer’s 50:50 Split Bid, Sets Award At ₹7.5 Lakh

In brief

The question

1. Whether the insurer could avoid or apportion its liability on the ground that the collision involved the fire brigade van

The court held

The claimants’ appeal, MACA No. 919 of 2023, was dismissed.

It also directed

The insurer’s appeal, MACA No. 748 of 2023, was allowed to the extent that the award was modified: the insurer was directed to pay Rs.7,50,000, with simple interest at 6% per annum from 22 December 2017 until realization, within eight weeks.

The amount deposited before the Tribunal was to be disbursed proportionately to the claimants in accordance with the award.

01Facts

On 22 October 2014, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle that collided with a roadside-parked fire brigade van, resulting in his death

p. 2

The deceased’s legal representatives claimed compensation from the motorcycle’s owner and insurer.

pp. 1–2

The Tribunal awarded Rs.7,90,400, with interest at 6% per annum from the claim-application date.

pp. 1–2

The claimants appealed on quantum; the insurer challenged both liability and quantum.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the insurer could avoid or apportion its liability on the ground that the collision involved the fire brigade van

p. 5

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s findings on the motorcycle rider’s negligence and the insurer’s liability should be disturbed

pp. 6–7

iii.3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification

pp. 7–9

03Law Applied

Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved party may appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

p. 1

Applying Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273, the Court stated that, in composite negligence, a claimant may recover the entire compensation from any one joint tortfeasor; apportionment between tortfeasors is not permissible as against the claimant, though their inter se liability may be determined where they are impleaded and the evidence permits.

pp. 5–6

The Court also referred to Taslim Parvin v. (Smt.) Usha Devi, 2018 (2) TAC 22 (SC), in considering the proposed modification of compensation accepted by the claimants and left to the Court’s discretion by the insurer.

p. 8

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The insurer’s contention that liability should be divided equally between the motorcycle and the fire brigade van did not justify reducing the claimants’ recovery: applying Khenyei, the Court held that a claimant may recover the full amount from one joint tortfeasor.

pp. 5–6

The evidence supported the finding that the deceased’s death resulted from the motorcycle rider’s rash and negligent riding, and the motorcycle was insured; the Tribunal therefore correctly placed the obligation to pay on the insurer.

p. 6

On quantum, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s use of Rs.150 per day as the deceased’s notional income, as the claimants had not produced reliable evidence that he was a mason or earned Rs.15,000 per month.

p. 7

After proposing compensation of Rs.7,50,000, the claimants accepted the proposal and the insurer left the matter to the Court’s discretion.

pp. 7–8