Motor Accident Compensation Assessed On Basis Of Dependency, Not Heirship; Non-Joinder Of All Legal Heirs Not Fatal To Claim: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court recently held that a Motor Accident Tribunal cannot deny compensation to the wife of the deceased, merely for non-joinder of his remaining heirs, i.e. sons and daughters.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed,

"Compensation is assessed on the basis of dependency and not on heirship. Only those who are the dependents shall be entitled to compensation. The entire concept of computation of compensation arising out of the death is based on calculation of the amount on dependency."

It stated that all the heirs are not a necessary party in a claim case and no suit is to be defeated because of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. In this regard it noted that Section 99 provides that no decree shall be reversed in appeal on account of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties or cause of action unless it is a case of non-joinder of necessary party.

In this backdrop, it remarked,

"Despite the above position the Court to dismiss suit where a necessary party has not been joined. Non-joinder of the necessary party is fatal when in a suit for share all the co-sharers are not made parties."

The claimant has preferred an appeal against the judgment dismissing the claim application filed under Section 92(A) of the old Motor Vehicle Act and Section 142 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The claimant is a widow of the deceased, 55 years of age, with a monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/- from the cattle trade at the time of the accident.

The owner and insurer of the vehicle resisted the claim on the ground of the non-joinder of the necessary party.

Based on the pleadings, the Court framed nine issues concerning the owner, insurer, and the cause of action of the suit. The Tribunal had settled the question of fact of the accident, noting that the accident arose out of the truck in question leading to the death. It was further noted that since the driver's license is not on record, it could not be proved if the driver had a valid driving license. It also computed a compensation to be paid by the insurer.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application because the other six daughters and one son of the deceased were not impleaded in the suit. It was held that all the heirs were entitled to compensation in an equal proposition, other than the claimant, who was also entitled to a consortium for the death of her husband.

The High Court said that the impugned judgment reflects a "sad state of affairs" where the Tribunal completely misdirected itself and lost sight that adjudication in a claim tribunal is like an inquiry and not a trial where the principles of CPC are not strictly applied. It held,

"The purpose is to award just and fair compensation at the earliest to the dependants of the 3 deceased. Even a civil suit cannot be dismissed for non-joinder, unless the party is a necessary to the suit. Under Order 1 Rule 9 no suit shall be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it."

The High Court noted that the matter for consideration is whether all their heirs are a necessary party in the claim sense. It referred to the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, where it was held that if parents and siblings survive the deceased, only the mother would be considered a dependant.

The High Court noted that the Tribunal had committed a gross error to dismiss the claim application merely because all the children of the deceased had not been impleaded. Any of the parties or parties could have been impleaded as dependants and ordered accordingly.

It remarked that a delay in awarding compensation frustrates the very object of the Act. It noted,

"It is thirty years down the line when the accident took place and there cannot be realistic assessment of dependency at this belated stage. Life does not wait for Court decrees and orders. Daughters would have been married by now and found their new home and moorings."

Therefore, it is noted that an exercise in determining the dependency at this stage would be an exercise in futility, so it will be just and fair to award the compensation in favor of the appellant/claimant only, who will receive the amount for herself and on behalf of others.

In the absence of the driver's driving license, the Court noted that the owner of the offending vehicle should be primarily liable and not the Insurance company. It referred to the case of Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba, where it was held that the insurance company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorized person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving license. In such a situation, the onus would shift on the insurance company only after the offending vehicle owner pleads and proves the basic fact of the driver being an authorized person to drive the vehicle.

Case Title: Ugni Bibi v. Gobind Ram Hathampuria

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 35

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order