Motor Accident Compensation Can Be Enhanced Even In Insurer's Appeal; Fair Compensation Is Paramount: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Dismissing an appeal filed by the insurance company against a motor accident compensation award, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that courts exercising jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act are duty-bound to award just and fair compensation, even if it results in enhancement of the award in the absence of any cross-objection or cross-appeal by the claimants.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "this Court can award just and reasonable compensation by enhancing the amount of compensation, even in the absence of a cross- objection or cross-appeal by the claimants...This conclusion is further strengthened by the settled principle that a Court adjudicating claims under the Motor Vehicles Act is duty- bound to award just and fair compensation to victims of road accidents, unrestrained by strict rules of pleadings and evidence, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors (2003)2SCC 274."
The appeal was preferred against the award passed in 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal, whereby compensation of ₹11,00,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum was awarded to the claimants on account of the death of Jasbir, and the insurance company was held liable.
The accident occurred on 01.01.2014, when Jasbir, along with Inderjeet, was returning from school on a motorcycle after attending an annual function. While crossing near a water hut, a tractor-trolley, driven rashly and negligently, struck the motorcycle. Jasbir died on the spot, while Inderjeet succumbed to his injuries the next day. An FIR under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was promptly registered.
Upholding the findings of the Tribunal, the High Court held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley by its driver. The Court relied upon the testimony of the eye-witness, who also authored the FIR, noting that his evidence remained unimpeached despite cross-examination.
Rejecting the insurance company's plea of contributory negligence on the ground that three persons were riding the motorcycle, the Court observed that the plea was raised for the first time in appeal, without any pleadings or issue framed before the Tribunal. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in M. Nithya v. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court held that compensation cannot be reduced on the basis of contributory negligence in the absence of a specific issue.
While affirming the findings on negligence, the Court found errors in the computation of compensation. It held that future prospects ought to have been assessed at 40% and not 50%, in view of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.
The amounts awarded under conventional heads required modification in line with settled law and Upon recalculation, the Court assessed the total compensation at ₹11,58,072, resulting in an enhancement of ₹58,072 over the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
Enhancement Without Cross-Objection
Addressing whether enhancement could be granted in an appeal filed solely by the insurance company, the Court answered in the affirmative, relying on Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. It held that the objective of proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act is to ensure just compensation, and courts are not constrained by technicalities of pleadings.
The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
The insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest within two months, whereafter the Tribunal would disburse the amount to the claimants as per the original apportionment.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the statutory amount of ₹25,000 deposited at the time of admission was ordered to be refunded to the insurance company.
Mr. R.C.Kapoor, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.
Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate, and Mr. Naveen, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5.
Title: National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Laltesh and others