The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the family of the deceased, affirming the Karnataka High Court’s decision that denied them compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The case arose from a fatal accident in 2014 where deceased, while driving a borrowed vehicle, lost control and crashed, resulting in his death. His wife, son, and parents sought ₹80 lakh as compensation, claiming he was a BBMP contractor earning ₹3 lakh per month.
However, both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court concluded that the accident occurred due to deceased’s own rash and negligent driving. The Courts held that since the deceased was the tortfeasor, his legal heirs could not claim compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act. Attempts by the claimants to later amend the petition and attribute the accident to a tyre burst were dismissed as contradictory to their initial pleadings and unsupported by the investigation records.
The Court emphasized that allowing such a claim would violate settled legal principles, including those laid down in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 and Minu B. Mehta v. B.R. Nayan, (1977) 2 SCC 441, which bar compensation where the deceased was solely responsible for the accident. Therefore, the Court held that impugned judgment and award does not call for any interference.
Appearances in the case:
Petitioner(s) :Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. S.K. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Garg, Adv. Mr. Varnik Kundaliya, Adv. Ms. G. Anusha, Adv.
