Motor accident compensation – Assessment of compensation on the basis of income of deceased – The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for assessment of just and fair compensation. Assessment of compensation cannot be done with mathematical precision. The assessment of income of the deceased by the High Court was done on a very conservative basis. Considering the material placed on...
Motor accident compensation – Assessment of compensation on the basis of income of deceased – The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for assessment of just and fair compensation. Assessment of compensation cannot be done with mathematical precision. The assessment of income of the deceased by the High Court was done on a very conservative basis. Considering the material placed on record, income of the deceased deserves to be re-assessed as it is established that he was multi-tasking and was not engaged in a 9.00 to 5.00 P.M. job. Considering the age of deceased at the time of accident as 52 years, the applicable multiplier for computation of compensation would be 11 times the sum of total dependency, as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, approved by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. (Para 14 & 15) Vethambal v. Oriental Insurance Company, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 206 : AIR 2024 SC 1377
Is deemed transfer of motor insurance policy on sale of vehicle applicable only to third party risks ? The Supreme Court refers to a larger bench. Jaswinder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 190
Section 161 - Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022 - If the Police conclude that it is a case of hit and run accident, the Police must inform the victim or the legal representatives of the victim, as the case may be, about the availability of the Scheme. (Para 6) S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 35 : AIR 2024 SC 583
Section 166 - Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees, Rules, 2006 (Haryana) - The family of a deceased in a motor accident cannot seek "double benefits". If the family has received benefits from the State Government on account of the death of the deceased, then such benefits are liable to be deducted from the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. There cannot be a duplication in payments or a windfall owing to a misfortune. On the death of the person in harness, owing to a road traffic accident the dependents of a deceased cannot be doubly benefited as opposed to those who are dependents of a deceased who dies owing to illness or any other reason under the Rules formulated by the Haryana Government. (Para 6) Krishna v. Tek Chand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 116
Section 166 - Homemaker's deemed income cannot be less than minimum wages notified for daily wager. The role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family member whose income is tangible as a source of livelihood for the family. The activities performed by a home-maker, if counted one by one, there will hardly be any doubt that the contribution of a home-maker is of a high order and invaluable. In fact, it is difficult to assess such a contribution in monetary terms. (Para 8) Arvind Kumar Pandey v. Girish Pandey, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 152
Section 173 – Appeal – A person dissatisfied with the amount of compensation received can file an appeal. (Para 12) Alifiya Husenbhai Keshariya v. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 414
Section 123(2), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 2(30) and Sale of Goods Act, 1930; Section 19 – Invalidation of election on grounds of corrupt practices by candidate – Non-disclosure of 3 vehicles – As per Section 2(30) of Act of 1988, an “Owner” is a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. As per Section 19 of Act of 1930, where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods, the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. Held, mere failure to get registered the name of the new owner of an already registered vehicle does not mean that the sale/gift transaction would stand invalidated and such a vehicle, despite being physically handed over to the new owner, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as still being in the possession and control of the former owner. Held, once it is accepted that the three vehicles in question were either gifted or sold before the filing of the nomination by candidate, the said vehicles cannot be considered to be still owned by candidate's wife and son for purposes other than those covered by the Act of 1988. Non-disclosure of the three vehicles registered in the names of the wife and son of candidate, could not be treated as an attempt of candidate to unduly influence the voters. Such non-disclosure cannot lead to invalidation of election on grounds of corrupt practices under Section 123(2). (Para 22, 27 & 28) Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 290 : AIR 2024 SC 2121
It is for the Tribunal in a given case to make a decision as to whether the entire amount has to be released or if it is to be released in part. Law Association v. Director General of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 499
Emoluments and benefits such as house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan, contribution to provident fund, etc. accrued to the deceased ought to be included while computing the loss of dependency to determine the compensation. Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 549
The High Court had limited the compensation awarded to the claimants to Rs. 4,00,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal based on the court fees paid. Held, courts are duty-bound to award “just compensation” based on the evidence, irrespective of the amount claimed in the appeal. The appellants were held entitled to Rs. 28,00,375/-, the compensation determined by the court, despite initially claiming only an additional Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Court permitted the appellants to amend the memo of appeal and pay the deficient court fee within four weeks. Kavita Balothiya v. Santosh Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 546
Guidelines issued by the Legal Services Authority for deciding the disability compensation in motor accident claims ought not to be made applicable for determining just and reasonable compensation in the cases where the proof of earning has been brought on record. The guidelines would be made applicable where the proof of earning is not available and to settle such disputes in Lok Adalat. Even in the absence of evidence regarding earning, the guidelines of the Legal Services Authority are not binding on the High Court and the Supreme Court and can be used only for guidance. Hans Raj v. Oriental Insurance Company, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 714
Legal heirs of the deceased who died in the road accident can't be denied their rightful compensation on the ground that the driver of the car contributed to the accident. Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 720
'Ownership' is determined by control and possession of the vehicle, especially at the time of an accident. Vaibhav Jain v. Hindustan Motors Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 649
Section 136A - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989; Rule 167A - Implementation of - Electronic Monitoring and Enforcement of Road Safety - Section 136A requires State Governments to implement technologies like speed cameras, closed-circuit television cameras, and wearable body cameras on national and state highways, and in urban areas with populations prescribed by the Central Government. Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, further specifies operational standards for these devices, defining "electronic enforcement devices" and setting conditions for issuing electronic challans. The Court highlighted the innovative potential of Section 136A for enhancing road safety and ensuring compliance with traffic laws. It emphasized the utility of electronic monitoring devices for real-time data collection, which aids in prosecuting traffic violators and maintaining road discipline. Effective implementation of these provisions would provide a streamlined mechanism for capturing and penalizing traffic offenses, reducing the dependency on police observations alone. The Court directed relevant authorities to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements, including the installation of electronic monitoring devices in high-risk areas, as specified in Rule 167A. It underscored the need for visible signage, physical road markings, and adherence to procedural requirements for issuing electronic challans. S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 669
Amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be just and reasonable. It is the duty of the Court to assess fair compensation. Rough calculation made by the claimant is not a bar or the upper limit. (Para 20, Referred : Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 841) Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 803
In motor accident claim cases, the courts must apply the principle of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Sajeena Ikhbal v. Mini Babu George, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 810
A person holding a driving license for a light motor vehicle(LMV) can, without any specific endorsement, drive a transport vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 7500 kg. If the gross weight of the vehicle is within 7500 kg, the driver with an LMV license can drive such a transport vehicle. The additional eligibility requirement to drive transport vehicles will apply to only those transport vehicles which weigh more than 7500 kgs. M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 859
Merely because a person was attempting to overtake a vehicle, cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence with nothing to the contrary suggested from the record. Prem Lal Anand and Others v. Narendra Kumar and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 892
Motor Accident Compensation – Future prospects must be considered in cases of self-employed & fixed salaried individuals to ensure equitable compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Both fixed-salary and self-employed individuals possess income growth potential due to inflation and career advancement, and thus, they cannot be deprived of future prospects in their compensation. Kavita Nagar & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 894
Injured claimant awarded a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs under the head "pain and suffering" even though he had prayed for Rs.10 lakhs. K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 916
Motor Accident Compensation – Rs 50,87,000 awarded as compensation to a claimant for the mental and physical disabilities suffered by her due to a motor vehicle accident that occurred when she was just 7 years old. Court took into account the deposition of a doctor who stated that due to the retardation, the victim can only learn skills up to the level of a 2nd Standard child and can live only under adult supervision throughout her life. Although as per the disability certificate, her disability was to the extent of 75 percent, the Court said that her functional disability should be treated as 100% for all practical purposes. Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 978
Other Supreme Court Annual Round-up stories can be read here.