Tyre Burst Can't Absolve Vehicle Owner Of Accident Liability In Absence Of Reasonable Care: AP High Court Grants ₹18 Lakh Compensation

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding of negligence in a fatal tyre-burst accident, holding the vehicle owner vicariously liable for the driver's negligent act. 

In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that a tyre burst or mechanical defect, by itself, could not absolve the vehicle owner of liability, particularly when there was no evidence that adequate road safety measures and reasonable care and caution had been taken.

It also found that the car was in perfect condition, further weakening the mechanical-defect defence.

Dismissing an appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs.17.83 lakh to Rs.18.63 lakh.

The Court noted:

“...the burden of proving that the accident was caused due to any mechanical or other defect in the vehicle lies on the owner. It is the duty of the owner to show that all reasonable care had been taken and that, despite such care, the defect remained hidden.

The Tribunal, after considering the aforesaid judgments, categorically observed that there is no evidence forthcoming from the owner or the insurer that adequate road safety measures and reasonable care and caution was taken by the owner or the driver and held that the car was in perfect condition.

On behalf of the 3rd respondent, to substantiate its claim/ argument that merely because a charge sheet is filed, it cannot be construed that the evidence is conclusive, as the decision of the criminal court is not binding and the Tribunal has an independent nature to proceed with…”

The case arose out of an accident in which the deceased, a Senior Assistant in the RTO office at Markapur, was travelling in a car along with her friends and other occupants in a car owned by one of the respondents.

The insurer was the appellant before the High Court, while the respondents comprised the two claimants, the vehicle owner and the driver.

According to the claimants, the driver allegedly drove the car at high speed and applied the brakes suddenly. The right rear tyre burst, following which the car dashed against a roadside culvert and overturned. The deceased sustained bleeding injuries and died on the spot.

The claimants stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 18,960 per month and that her premature death resulted in the loss of their present and future dependency.

They approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by filing a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 23,48,520 from the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle.

The insurer contested the claim. It argued that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and had failed to comply with the requirements of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It further alleged that the vehicle owner had wilfully violated the insurance policy conditions and, therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay compensation. 

It also disputed the deceased's age and income and contended that the two claimants, being majors and employed, were not dependent on her earnings.

Against this backdrop, the Tribunal framed issues on the driver's negligence, the validity of his licence and the claimants' entitlement to compensation.

On negligence, the Tribunal found that the insurer had failed to elicit anything contrary to the claimants' version of how the accident occurred. One witness reiterated the manner of occurrence, while two others corroborated the account. The charge sheet, filed after police investigation, attributed offences for causing death and injuries by negligent driving to the driver under Sections 304-A

and 338 of IPC. The inquest report also corroborated the claimants' version of the accident.

Rejecting the tyre-burst defence, it noted that neither the vehicle owner nor the insurer produced evidence to show that adequate road safety measures, reasonable care and caution had been taken in maintaining the vehicle. It further found that the car was in perfect condition, rejecting the contention that the accident was attributable to any mechanical defect.

The Tribunal accordingly held the vehicle owner vicariously liable for the negligent act of the driver.

The Tribunal also rejected the insurer's contention regarding the employment of the dependants, noting that there was no evidence to establish that their employment excluded them from the definition of dependants.

The Tribunal found the deceased's income to be supported by salary certificates issued by the competent authority and awarded Rs.17,83,576 as compensation.

Aggrieved by the award, Reliance General Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal's findings before the High Court, particularly on negligence, liability and the quantum of compensation.

The High Court did not interfere with the Tribunal's finding of negligence, finding no material to attribute the accident solely to a mechanical defect or show that the owner had taken reasonable care.

On the quantum of compensation, the High Court noted that the Tribunal had taken the deceased's salary at Rs. 20,077 per month on the basis of salary certificates issued by the competent authority. After deducting the amount towards Provident Fund, the net salary was taken as Rs. 19,927 per month, resulting in an annual income of Rs.2,39,124.

The Tribunal took the deceased's age as 53 years based on her Aadhaar card. Applying the multiplier of 11 applicable to the 51–55 age group, it assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.26,30,364.

After deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses, the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 17,53,576. It further awarded Rs. 20,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000 towards love and affection.

The High Court found that the compensation under the conventional heads required modification.

Since there were two dependants, the Court held that Rs. 80,000 ought to have been awarded towards loss of consortium instead of Rs.10,000. It further awarded Rs. 15,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 towards loss of estate.

Accordingly, the total compensation was recalculated at Rs. 18,63,576.

The High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal with the above modification and directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within eight weeks, after deducting any amount already deposited.

The enhanced amount would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the High Court's order until realisation.

Upon deposit, the claimants were permitted to withdraw the amount by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri D. Sumanth for Sri D. Ravi Kiran

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P. Raj Kumar & Sri Sazid Kallur