Appellate Court Can Enhance Accident Compensation Under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC Even Without Cross Appeal By Claimants: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High court held that in motor accident claim appeals, the High Court is empowered to modify and enhance compensation even in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection by the claimants, if the award of the Claims Tribunal is found to be on the lower side.A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the Claims Tribunal is under a duty to award “just and reasonable” compensation, guided by principles of fairness, equity, and good conscience. The Court emphasized that the appellate powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC are wide and enable the High Court to pass any decree or order which ought to have been passed to meet the ends of justice.Quoting the Supreme Court in Pralhad v. State of Maharashtra, the Court noted that “The provision of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC is clearly an enabling provision, whereby the appellate court is empowered to pass any decree or make any order which ought to have been passed or made, and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require.”The Court also relied upon Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) and National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) to rectify the Tribunal's error in applying the multiplier with reference to the mother's age instead of the deceased's age. The deceased, aged 23, warranted the application of multiplier 18, not 14.Accordingly, the compensation was recalculated as follows:Loss of Dependency – ₹4,86,000, Funeral Expenses – ₹15,000, Loss of Estate – ₹15,000Loss of Filial Consortium – ₹40,000, Total: ₹5,56,000While dismissing the insurer's appeal, the Court enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants, directing the appellant-insurance company to deposit the balance amount in Court for disbursement.The Court said the Tribunal had erred in applying the multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased's mother instead of the deceased himself.BackgroundThe present appeal was directed against the award dated 31.05.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, whereby compensation of ₹3,93,000 along with 7.5% interest was awarded to the claimants, mother and brother of deceased Mohd. Hanif. The award was to be satisfied by the appellant-insurance company.The accident occurred on 27.02.2006 when deceased Mohd. Hanif, aged 23 years, was travelling in a tractor bearing registration No. JK02AE-3818. On reaching Nallah Chohi, Tehsil Bishnah, the tractor overturned due to rash and negligent driving, resulting in Hanif sustaining fatal injuries.The claimants sought compensation of ₹23 lakhs, asserting that the deceased was working as a labourer and earning ₹5,000 per month. The insurance company contested the claim, arguing that Hanif was a gratuitous passenger, being the son of the owner of the vehicle, and therefore not covered under the insurance policy. The insurer also challenged the quantum of compensation.Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Noor Begum and Ors.2025Counsel: Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Suneel Malhotra, Advocate for the respondents.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Appellate Court Can Enhance Accident Compensation Under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC Even Without Cross Appeal By Claimants: J&K&L High Court

Aleem Syeed

Tags