In a first appeal filed before the Gujarat High Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Reliance) challenged a judgment and award dated 03-09-2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Halol, Panchmahals (MACT), whereby Reliance was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 97,07,248/- with interest at 8% per annum, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar rejected the appeal, but allowed the cross-objection to enhance the compensation paid to the claimants.
On 02-09-2016, the deceased was riding his motorcycle when he dashed into the offending tanker, which was unauthorizedly parked by the opposite party 1 in the middle of the road without any precautionary signal or parking lights. The deceased suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, his legal heirs and representatives filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 90 lakhs. The MACT held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the opposite party 1 and awarded a compensation of Rs. 97,07,248/- with interest.
Reliance challenged the judgment and award on the ground that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. However, the Court stated that the driver of the offending tanker was rightly held liable for his negligence. Reference was made to United India Insurance Company Limited v. Falguniben Amrishkumar Soni 2019 (4) GLH 339 and Jumani Begum v. Ram Narayan & Ors. 2020 (1) ACC 255 (SC), and it was held that the present appeal would fail since the MACT had properly appreciated the evidence regarding the negligence of the stationary vehicle.
Regarding the cross-objection filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, the Court noted that the MACT had concluded that the deceased was 35 years old. It was also noted that the deceased was serving as a Senior Mechanical Engineer in M/s. Gunnebo India Pvt. Ltd. at GIDC with a salary of Rs. 55,000/- per month.
Further, the Court perused the salary slip of the deceased while noting that the MACT had considered the salary to be Rs. 44,817/- and re-assessed the monthly salary at Rs. 48,624/- after including basic salary, educational allowance, transport allowance, medical bills, leave travel assistance, gratuity, HRA, and salary towards leave. Considering the deceased’s monthly income and future prospects, the monthly loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 72,936/-.
The Court enhanced the amount awarded under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,150/- for each dependant. Rs. 40,000/- awarded as parental consortium was also enhanced to Rs. 1,93,600/- since the deceased had four dependents. Thus, the Court modified the impugned judgment and held the enhanced compensation payable to the claimants to be Rs. 1,07,32,684/-.
The Court referred to Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 274 and stated that there is no restriction that compensation can only be awarded up to the amount claimed. Thus, the Court rejected Reliance’s appeal and partly allowed the cross-objection while modifying the impugned judgment.
Reliance was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, along with accrued interest, within four weeks, and the Court directed the MACT to disburse the compensation amount to the claimants after proper verification.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Ms. Masumi V Nanavaty, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati
For Defendants – Mr. Mohsin M Hakim
