Bombay High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Costs On HDFC Ergo For Frivolous Appeal Against Compensation In Motor Accident Case

Holding that the finding by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) based on fact cannot be challenged through a writ of certiorari on the ground that the finding was incorrect as "inadequate and insufficient" material was adduced, the Bombay High Court recently imposed hefty costs of Rs 2 lakhs on HDFC Ergo Genral Insurance, for challenging a Rs 45.25 lakh compensation awarded to an Air India crew.A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad noted that one Adil Peters, 53, suffered permanent disability after he met an accident by a speeding car on November 18, 2014. Peters worked as a Cabin Crew with Air India and earned around Rs 2 lakhs per month. However, due to the tragic accident, he suffered 100 per cent permanent disability. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the Appellant insurance company argued that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the evidence on record and also did not allow joining of some "necessary" parties to the proceedings there. It also contended that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the "contradictions" of the victim in his evidence, specifically with regards to whether the offending car dashed his bike either from the front side or from the rear side. Unimpressed with the contentions raised in an interim application, the judges said, "We are of a definite opinion that no interference is required with the said judgment on the ground that there is a contradiction in the statement of the victim-applicant; whether he was hit from the rear side or dashed from the front side of the vehicle."The judges emphasised the settled law that the Tribunal is not bound by the pleadings of the parties in a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. "The function of the Tribunal is to determine amount of fair compensation in the event an accident has taken place. There are no pleadings by the Appellant Insurance Company that the guidelines in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation were ignored by the Tribunal," the judges noted in their order passed on January 6. In the circumstances of the case, the judges said, the Tribunal took a holistic view of the matter and awarded compensation of Rs. 45.25 lakhs to the claimants. "This is well remembered that the strict proof of income cannot be insisted by the Tribunal and the claimants are required to indicate the income generated by the victim of motor accident, present or future, on the touchstone of the preponderance of probability. The Tribunal is required to take a special care that the victims and their dependents do not suffer merely because of some doubts here or some obscurity there," the judges said. The judges made it clear that the decision rendered by the Tribunal on appreciation of the materials on record cannot be overturned on a minor mistake, even if committed by the Tribunal. "It is not every mistake committed by a Court or Tribunal which may lay a foundation for challenging the judgment by filing a First Appeal," the judges observed. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding the Tribunal erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding, the judges pointed out. "If a finding of fact is based on no evidence that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point cannot be agitated in a writ proceedings," the bench held. An inference of fact to be drawn from the findings of the interim Tribunal is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and this issue cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised, the judges added. As regards the argument of contradiction in Peters' testimony, the bench said that some inconsistency or contradiction in the statement of a witness shall not attain materiality unless it shakes the very foundation of the judgment. "Therefore, finding no ground to interfere, First Appeal No.1763 of 2025 is dismissed. By way of litigation cost, the appellant-Insurance Company shall pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent no.1-victim in addition to the decretal amount as per the judgment dated 4th March 2025," the bench ordered. With these observations, the bench dismissed the interim application and also the First Appeal. Appearance: Senior Advocate Surel Shah along with...

Bombay High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Costs On HDFC Ergo For Frivolous Appeal Against Compensation In Motor Accident Case

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bombay High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Costs On HDFC Ergo For Frivolous Appeal Against Compensation In Motor Accident Case

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers