With The Object of Awarding Just & Fair Compensation, Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation In The Absence Of An Appeal: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court reiterated the settled legal position that with the object of awarding just and fair compensation, the appellate Court could enhance the compensation even if an appeal or objection has not been filed. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary referred to the decision in Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana, where it was held that,

"It is evidently clear that there is no complete or indefeasible extinguishment of right to file cross-objections after the expiry of statutory period of limitation provided under the said provision. Crossobjections within the scheme of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code are to be treated as separate appeal and must be disposed of on same principles in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 of the Code."

The matter pertained to the crash of an Alto car with a stationary truck. The appeal was preferred because it was at best a case of contributory negligence, but compensation of award has been made against the truck's insurer without even impleading Maruti Alto Car as a party. In the claimant's claim, the lower Court has misdirected itself to rely upon the charge-sheet filed against the truck driver.

The Insurance Company pleaded upon the principle of res ispa loquitor and its application in the instant matter. They claim that the accident's impact was so intense that it resulted in the death of not only the driver but also the two occupants of the car. Therefore, the liability should be apportioned between the insurer and the truck, not solely on the insurer.

The Tribunal noted that the accident took place due to the wrong manner of parking the truck without a tail light and awarded compensation solely against the truck's insurer. In delivering the said order, it referred to the Road Regulations Act 1989, which provides that every driver of a motor vehicle parking on any road shall park in such a way that it does not cause or is likely to cause danger, obstruction, or inconvenience to other road users.

The Court referred to Archit Saini v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The driver of the car could not spot the gas tanker due to the flashlight of the oncoming traffic and colliding with a parked truck. In the said case, the apex court had held that it was a case of contributory negligence.

The Court refused to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal of fixing the liability on the truck parked without any tail light or indicator.

On the quantum of compensation, the Court noted that: (i) compensation under conventional heads has not been allowed; (ii) the interest of rate has been allowed at the rate of 6%, which ought to have been 9% from the date of application; and (iii) the amount awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act ought not to have been ordered to be deducted from the total compensation because of Sections 144 and 141 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

Case Title: The National Insurance Co. Ltd. East Singhbhum v. Babla Bagchi & Ors and other connected matters.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 21

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order