-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal by the owner of a vehicle involved in a fatal accident, while allowing the cross-objections filed by the claimants for enhanced compensation. The court upheld the principle of "pay and recover," directing the insurance company to pay the compensation to the victims and subsequently recover the amount from the owner due to the driver’s invalid license. The court also increased the compensation amount awarded to the claimants from ₹6,60,000 to ₹10,99,200, with interest.
The case arose from a road accident on September 9, 2003, in which J.R. Philip lost his life after being struck by a truck driven by Baljinder Singh. Philip’s family filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for his death. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹6,60,000 to the claimants, holding the vehicle’s owner and insurer jointly liable.
The vehicle owner, Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj, appealed against the award, arguing that he had verified the driver’s license before employment. Concurrently, the claimants filed cross-objections, seeking an increase in compensation, contending that the Tribunal’s award inadequately accounted for factors such as future prospects, loss of consortium, and other non-pecuniary losses.
Issue 1: Liability of the Insurance Company Despite Invalid License
The owner argued that he had checked the driver’s license, which appeared valid, and therefore should not be held liable. However, evidence showed that the driver did not have a valid license at the time of the accident. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents, particularly National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which established that insurers must initially pay compensation to third-party victims even if the driver lacks a valid license, but may later recover the amount from the vehicle owner.
“The respondent-insurance company has been successful in proving on the record that Baljinder Singh was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident,” noted the court, affirming the insurance company’s right to recover the compensation from the owner.
Issue 2: Assessment of Compensation – Future Prospects and Loss of Consortium
The claimants argued that the Tribunal undervalued the compensation by not adequately considering factors such as future prospects, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses. The court, relying on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, recalculated the compensation using an 11-multiplier, taking into account future prospects and additional amounts for consortium and other conventional heads.
The court noted that the Tribunal had erred by applying a multiplier of 10 and by omitting compensation for future prospects and non-pecuniary heads.
“As per settled principles of law… the appellants-cross objectors are held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation,” stated the court, awarding additional amounts for loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses.
The court ordered a 9% annual interest on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the claim petition until realization. The insurance company was directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and then recover the amount from the vehicle’s owner.
Key Takeaways
"Pay and Recover" Principle: The judgment reaffirms that insurers must compensate third-party victims even if the driver lacks a valid license, but can recover the amount from the vehicle owner.
Enhanced Compensation: The High Court’s recalculation based on Supreme Court guidelines ensures fairer compensation, including considerations for future prospects, consortium, and funeral expenses.
Limited Liability for Insurers: The ruling illustrates how insurers’ liability to third parties remains intact under social welfare provisions, despite internal breaches of insurance policy terms by vehicle owners.
Date of Decision: October 15, 2024
