Uttarakhand HC Raises Compensation For Parents Of 9-Year-Old Killed In Crash To ₹6.62 Lakh Despite No Cross-Appeal

On 30 May 2011, nine-year-old Aman was travelling on a scooter with his father when it collided with a Gypsy insured by the appellant. Aman died from his injuries on 10 June 2011.

His parents sought compensation; the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹2,86,000 and held the insurer liable.

The insurer appealed, alleging that the Gypsy’s driver lacked a valid transport-vehicle authorisation on the accident date.

The claimants sought reassessment of compensation, although they had filed no independent appeal or cross-objections.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against a Claims Tribunal’s award.

An insurer relying on breach of a policy condition must establish that breach with reliable evidence; a bald plea or reference to the expiry of an endorsement, without establishing its legal effect for the vehicle concerned, is insufficient.

In assessing compensation for a child’s death, the Court referred to Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto, (2023) 1 SCC 204, concerning notional income and the multiplier method.

It also considered Ranjana Prakash v. Divisional Manager, (2011) 14 SCC 639, on the limits on enhancement when claimants have not appealed or filed cross-objections, and Surekha v. Santosh, (2021) 16 SCC 467, in relation to the appellate court’s power to ensure just compensation.

The Court rejected the insurer’s licence defence because the insurer had not shown a legally sustainable basis, supported by cogent evidence, to establish that the expired endorsement meant the driver was unauthorised to drive the particular Gypsy on the accident date.

On compensation, it considered the child-death principles in Meena Devi and the proposed calculation of ₹4,50,000 for loss of dependency (₹30,000 notional annual income × multiplier 15), together with amounts for loss of estate, funeral expenses, filial consortium and medical expenses.

Although it acknowledged the restriction discussed in Ranjana Prakash, the Court considered the just-compensation principles and the beneficial object of the Act sufficient to reassess compensation in this appeal, notwithstanding the absence of cross-objections.

The insurer was directed to deposit the balance before the Tribunal; interest was to accrue at the rate applicable under the Tribunal’s award, and the Tribunal was to disburse the amount in accordance with law.