Date of Judgement:
16th August 2021
Coram:
Justice Navin Sinha and Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Parties:
Appellant: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Respondent: Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased) through his legal representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan & Anr.
Subject
The judgement dealt with the elements that can be added under the claim for loss of estate of the deceased, in cases where the legal representatives are substituted in the claim petition due to the death of the original claimant.
Overview
- The original claimant (deceased) had filed for compensation under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA), after suffering severe injuries in a motor accident on 2nd May 1999. The claimant underwent several treatment and eventually became physically disabled that forced him to leave his job and change his location.
- The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 1 lakh as compensation with 9% interest on 2nd November 2006.
- The original claimant preferred an appeal; however, before the disposal of the case, he passed away on 6th November 2015. The death was reportedly not due to the injuries suffered in the accident.
- The daughter of the claimant was substituted in the appeal. The High Court substantially enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 37, 81, 234/-. Thereafter, this appeal was preferred in the Supreme Court.
- The appellants argued that since the death was not due to the accident caused, the legal heir cannot be awarded for loss of salary, future prospects, pain and suffering.
- Therefore, the legal heir is entitled only to the compensation that forms part of the estate of the deceased. Further, the appellants alleged that the High Court ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the compensation owing to the personal expenses of the deceased.
- It was also argued the daughter, being a married woman, is not entitled to the compensation as she is not a descendant of the original claimant.
- The Respondents submitted that the personal expenses should not be deducted as the rule is applicable only if the claimant dies as a consequence of the accident, on the spot or in the near future.
- It was contended that only the claim for personal injuries should be abated on the death of the claimant, whereas the other claims stand valid.
Issues Involved
- Whether claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 abates on the death of the claimant?
- What are the items that would cover the loss of estate in case the claim petition is survived by the legal heirs?
- Whether claim for personal injuries becomes part of the loss of estate of the deceased in cases where the claim petition is pursued by the legal heir?
Important Provisions
- Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166 lists the persons who can apply for compensation in the Claims Tribunal. It states that an application for compensation may be made by the person who sustained the injuries; or the owner of the property; or the legal representative, if death has resulted out of the accident; or the agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the his legal representatives in case of his death.
Judgement Analysis
- In the very first paragraph, the Court expressed its distress on the 20 years delay in the completion of the case. “A claim arising out of injuries caused in a motor accident that has reached its fruition more than 20 years later before this Court, which we find extremely distressing”, the judgement read. (Paragraph No. 1)
- The Two-Judge Bench opined that barring the claim for personal injuries, the legal heirs are entitled to all the other compensations that are covered under the loss of estate. It was held that loss of estate would cover medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, doctor’s fee, income of the deceased, future prospects, etc. (Paragraph Nos. 9 and 20)
- The Supreme Court censured the Tribunal’s judgement as being “cursory” and “cryptic”, and upheld the observations of the High Court. “Weare,therefore,oftheopinionthatwhiletheclaimforpersonal injuries may not have survived after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, but the claims for loss of estate caused was available to and could be pursued by the legal representative of the deceased in the appeal”, it further held. (Paragraph Nos. 8 and 18)
- However, the Court removed the High Court’s award for personal injuries and added Rs. 1 lakh towards medical expenses. In all, the Supreme Court directed the appellants to pay Rs. 28,42,175/ as compensation within four weeks, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition. (Paragraph Nos. 21 and 22)
Conclusion
Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is always a debatable issue because to determine the “just compensation” amount, the courts consider a lot of relevant factors, due to which there may be differences in opinion. However, keeping aside all other elements, it is important for judges to make a liberal interpretation of the laws dealing with the matter. This is important because a narrow interpretation would defeat the very own purpose and object of the Act. The Supreme Court’s observations, in the instant case, evidently give a broader scope to the Act. The learned judge further observed that paying compensation to the victim or his family is a statutory obligation, cannot be simply evaded on petty reasons. Bearing this obligation of the wrongdoer, the courts are required to construe the letters of the Statute accordingly. As stated by the learned judge, the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficialandwelfarelegislation and Courts must be mindful of the same while dealing with accident cases.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
