In cross appeals filed before the Supreme Court against a common judgment dated 08-08-2022 by the Delhi High Court, whereby the appeals preferred by the insurer as well as the claimants were dismissed, and an award dated 30-11-2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi was affirmed, a Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismissed the appeal by Oriental Insurance and partly allowed the appeal by the claimants.
On 11-06-2013, the deceased, aged about 20 years, was travelling in a Wagon-R car driven by his roommate. At about 3:00 A.M., when the vehicle reached near Andrews Ganj Bus Stop on the BRT Corridor, Delhi, it collided with a truck. According to the claimants, the truck had been stationed in the middle of the road without any parking lights, indicators, reflectors or warning signs. Resultantly, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed thereto, while the roommate also suffered injuries. Investigation ensued upon registration of a First Information Report (FIR), and a charge-sheet was filed against the truck driver under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). A Detailed Accident Report was filed before the Tribunal on 11-09-2013.
Thereafter, the parents of the deceased instituted a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of the untimely death of their son. It was asserted that the deceased was a bachelor, pursuing Chartered Accountancy (Final), and undergoing articleship with. The defence of the opposite parties was that the truck had suffered puncture in its rear tyres and had been parked on the extreme left side of the road, and that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the Wagon-R.
The MACT recorded a finding that the accident had occurred due to the truck driver’s negligence in leaving the vehicle stationed on the road without adequate warning or precautionary measures. The plea that the driver of the Wagon-R was negligent or contributorily negligent was rejected and on the question of compensation, the MACT examined the educational and professional profile of the deceased and considered his future professional prospects and assessed his income at Rs. 55,500/- per month. After making deductions towards income tax and personal expenses, adding future prospects of 50% and applying the multiplier of 18, as well as providing under various conventional heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 81,21,900/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the DAR.
ALSO READ: Railways Must Compensate Family of Catering Waiter Who Fell From Running Train: Gujarat HC
Aggrieved, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Oriental Insurance) preferred an appeal before the Delhi High Court, principally contending that the MACT erred in fastening negligence upon the truck driver and in assessing the income of the deceased on hypothetical considerations. The claimants preferred a cross-appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
Both appeals were dismissed by the impugned judgment and the MACT’s finding that the truck had been negligently stationed on the road without warning indicators was affirmed while upholding the conclusion that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the Wagon-R driver. The High Court also found the assessment of compensation to be just and reasonable and, consequently, maintained the award in its entirety. Hence, the present appeals.
Regarding the question of negligence, the Court found no reason to take a view different from that concurrently taken by the Tribunal and the High Court. It was said that the evidence established that the offending truck had been stationed on the road without parking lights, indicators, reflectors or any cautionary signs. The Court stated that a stationary vehicle occupying the road in the dead of night without any warning indication posed an evident hazard to road users. It was held that the plea of contributory negligence could not be accepted on mere conjecture.
Regarding quantum, the Court examined the methodology adopted by the MACT in computing compensation and found that it had already departed from the actual stipend provided and had proceeded to assess the income by considering the deceased’s professional prospects. It was said that the case concerned the loss of a young life with promising professional potential, and said that the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is ultimately guided by the principle of awarding ‘just compensation’.
The Court opined that reducing the compensation payable to the claimants at this stage on account of what is essentially a technical overlap in the methodology adopted by the MACT would not advance the cause of substantive justice. The beneficial character of the legislation, the long passage of time since the accident, the concurrent assessment by the Tribunal as well as the High Court and the impossibility of placing a precise monetary value upon the loss of a young life persuaded the Court not to disturb the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency.
The Court noted that in the present case, even though there was evidence of stipend being earned by the deceased, no cogent material was provided to establish the alleged income. It was said that compensation cannot be founded on assumptions of assured professional success or on salary benchmarks of unrelated successful professionals. Hence, the Court held that there was no room left for enhancement on the aspect of loss of dependency. However, the Court found that no amount had been awarded under the conventional head of consortium, and recognized that the claimants, being the parents of the deceased unmarried son, were entitled to compensation under the head of ‘filial consortium’. Accordingly, in addition to the compensation already awarded, the Court held that the claimants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial consortium.
Thus, the appeal by Oriental Insurance was dismissed, and the appeal by the claimants was partly allowed to the limited extent. Consequently, the total compensation payable to the claimants stood enhanced from Rs. 81,21,900/- to Rs. 82,01,900/- along with interest in terms of MACT’s award. Oriental Insurance was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks.
