Summary of this article
Court includes gratuity, HRA while fixing accident compensation
Illegally parked tanker held solely negligent; insurer appeal dismissed
Family payout raised to Rs 1.07 crore total
The Gujarat High Court enhanced the compensation payable to the legal heirs of a motorcyclist who died after colliding with an illegally parked tanker on a highway at night. The court increased the compensation given to the deceased by an additional 1.07 crore after reviewing the income of the deceased and rejected the appeal of the insurance company.
The accident occurred when the deceased was riding his motorcycle towards Pavagadh, Gujarat. His motorcycle collided with a tanker that had been parked in the middle of the road. The motorcyclist sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to death.
Following the accident, the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs 90 lakh.
Tribunal's Findings On Negligence
After examining the evidence, the Tribunal held the driver of the tanker solely negligent for the accident. It noted that the tanker had been illegally and unauthorisedly parked on the highway at night without basic safety measures.
Based on this, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs 97,07,248 with interest at 8 per cent per annum.
Insurance Company's Appeal
The insurance company challenged the plea of contributory negligence before the High Court, saying that the deceased was speeding and negligently riding when the accident occurred.
However, the court observed that after examining the material on record, the insurer did not seriously dispute the Tribunal's finding on negligence. As a result, the court held that the issue of negligence did not warrant further examination.
The court, in addition, cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Bimla Devi vs. H.R.S.T.C., and Parmeshwari Devi vs. Amir Chand, where it is accepted that negligence in cases of motor accidents may be established by referring to the totality of evidence on record.
Finding Of Sole Negligence
The High Court sided with the Tribunal, saying that only the driver of the stationary tanker was the cause of the accident. It noted that the placing of a heavy vehicle in the middle of a highway during the night without reflectors and a warning signal was a severe threat to other road users.
The court determined that the Tribunal had rightfully considered the evidence on negligence and that it did not need to be interfered with. This appeal by the insurance company was hence denied.
Recalculation Of Income
The court subsequently took into account the cross-objection of the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. In the re-evaluation, the court observed that the deceased had reached the age of 35 and he worked as a Senior Mechanical Engineer.
The Tribunal had previously taken into consideration the income of the deceased in August 2016 of Rs 44,817 per month. Nonetheless, the High Court reviewed the employment contract along with the salary slip and appointment letter, and discovered that all the elements of the salary were not taken into consideration.
The court believed that when just compensation was to be assessed, the basic salary, educational allowance, transport allowance, medical bills, leave travel assistance, gratuity, house rent allowance (HRA) and paid leaves, among others, had to be factored in. The monthly income of the deceased was re-evaluated at Rs 48,624 after a deduction of Rs 200 as professional tax in determining the future loss of dependency.
Improved Compensation And Instructions
According to the updated income, the court increased the sum granted on future loss of dependency to Rs 105,02,784. It also raised the sums to be paid in loss of estate and funeral expenses to Rs 18,150 each. A grant of Rs 1,93,600 was given towards the filial and parental consortium for four dependents.
The total compensation was re-valued as Rs 1,07,32,684.
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar instructed the insurance company to pay the final increased amount plus the interest it had accrued within four weeks. The Tribunal was directed to pay out the sum to the claimants after due verification.
This appeal was therefore granted by the High Court, which allowed the appeal of the claimants.
