MACP Referencer Manual

MOTORACCIDENTCLAIM PETITIONREFERENCE MANUAL
Prepared by Hanif. S. Mulia. hanifkaiz@yahoo.in
MACP Reference Manual
CONTENTS
Sr. No. Particulars Page No. 1 Re Requirement for the police to forward to the Claims Tribunal 6
AccidentInformationReport(AIR)whichtheTribunalhastotreat asanapplicationforcompensation.
2 3
HowtodecideaclaimpetitionwhereinFatalInjuriesweresustained 12 bythedeceased How to decide a claim petition wherein claimant has sustained 19 Injuries Howtodeterminemonthlyincomeofthedeceasedorinjuredwhen 42 nodocumentinsupportthereofisproduced Howtodetermineincomeofthedeceasedorinjuredclaimantwhen 44 thereisdocumentaryevidenceonrecordtoshowthatthedeceased or injured claimant was earning in foreign currency and not in IndianRupee
HowtodecideaclaimpetitionwheredefenceofInvalid,Learners 46 Licence&FakeDrivingLicenceandDefenseofQualification/Badge istaken
InwhichcircumstancesInsurerisliabletopaycompensationwhen 55 injuredclaimantordeceasedwastravellinginthegoodsvehicle Liability of insurer to compensation in the cases where injured 59 claimantordeceasedwastravellingintheprivatecarasoccupants Ortravellingontwowheeleraspillionrider
Howtodecideaclaimpetitionpreferredundersection163Aofthe 60 Act
2 MACP Reference Manual
10
What if the cheque given for payment of premium of insurance 64 policyisdishonoured WhatisthemeaningofArisingoutofuseofMotorVehicle ofpurchaseofvehicleunderthe'HirePurchaseAgreement'canbe saidtobetheowneroftheVehicle
65
11 12
WhetherFinanceCompany,whichhasadvancedloanforthepurpose 67
13
Whendriveroftheunknownvehiclespedawayaftertheaccident, 68 whetherinsuchsituationclaimpetitionismaintainableinviewof theprovisionscontainedunderSections161&163oftheAct
14
Whetherallthejointtortfeasorsarerequiredtobejoinedasparty 70 opponentsintheclaimpetition Whetherthepointofnegligenceandliabilityofinsurer,decidedby 72 thecoordinateTribunalisbindingontheothercoordinateTribunal, iftheclaimpetitionhasarisenfromthesameaccident
15
16 Whetheraclaimpetitionpreferredbytheaclaimant(alsotheownerof 73
the offending vehicle, without involving another vehicle) alleging therein that accident occurred because of the rash and negligent drivingofthevehicleownedbyhimismaintainable
17
WhatisthemeaningofPublicPlace,asdefinedu/s2(34)ofthe 75 Act What if, the vehicle which met with an accident is sold of by its 78 ownerbeforethedateofaccidentandnameofthetransfereeowner (purchaser)isnotenteredintotheR.C.Book
18
19
Whetheraclaimpetitioncanbedismissedforwantofprosecutionor 83 nonappearanceoftheclaimantand/orhisAdvocate Whether a claim petition can be dismissed for non production of 84 documentsmentionedunderRule211oftheGujaratMotorVehicles
20
Rules,1988
21
Howtodecideaclaimpetition,whereinsurerhastakenadefenceof 85 violationof'Permit'
88 90
22 WWhetheranawardpassedbytheTribunalcanbereviewed: 23
DetailsofProposalFormsforPrivateCars/MotorisedTwoWheelers PackagePolicyandLiabilityOnly/ActPolicy:
24
Standard wordings in respect of the Policy including Premium 90 computationtable,certificateofInsuranceandCoverNote
25 CeCertainminorpoints/issueswhichcreatelittletroubleforLd.Judges 91
todecidesuchtrickypoints/issues.Suchpoints/issues,withcitations andreadyreckoner.
1. Whiledecidingaclaimpetition,preferredundertheMotorVehiclesAct,
1988(hereinafterreferredas'theAct'),moreoftenthennot,Ld.Judgesof theTribunalsarevexedwithsuchquestionsthatitbecomesdifficultfor themtocometoacertainconclusion,mainreasonsforsuchvexationare: a)Nonavailabilityofjudgmentsoncertainpoints, b)If judgments are available on some points, they run in differentdirections, c) Lackofknowledgetodecide,astowhethertheinsurance policyis'ActPolicy'(StatutoryPolicy)or'Comprehensive Policy'(PackagePolicy). 2. By way of this Article, an attempt is made to help Judicial Officers to decideclaimpetitionseasily,andmoreparticularly,inaccordancewiththe law. Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts have laid down principles/guidelines to decide claim petitions, which will be discussed hereinbelow.
3.RequirementforthepolicetoforwardtotheClaimsTribunalAccident InformationReport(AIR)whichtheTribunalhastotreatasanapplication forcompensation: 3.1 TheBenchcomprisingofThreeHon'bleLordshipsofHon'bleApex Court in the case of Jai Prakash v/s National Insurance Com. Ltd, reportedin2010(2)GLR(SC)hasgivenfollowingdirectionstoPolice andTribunals. A)DirectionstothePoliceAuthorities: TheDirectorGeneralofPoliceofeachStateisdirectedtoinstruct allpolicestationsinhisStatetocomplywiththeprovisionsofSec. 158(6)oftheAct.Forthispurpose,thefollowingstepswillhave to be taken by the Station House Officers of the jurisdictional policestations: (i)AccidentInformationReport('AIR',forshort)inFormNo. 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 shall be submitted by the police (Station House Officer) to the jurisdictionalMotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal,within30days oftheregistrationoftheF.I.R.Inadditiontotheparticulars requiredtobefurnishedinFormNo.54,thepoliceshouldalso collectandfurnishthefollowingadditionalparticularsinthe AIRtotheTribunal: (i)Theageofthevictimsatthetimeofaccident; (ii)Theincomeofthevictim; (iii)Thenamesandagesofthedependentfamilymembers. (ii)TheAIRshallbeaccompaniedbytheattestedcopiesofthe
F.I.R., site sketch/mahazar/photographs of the place of occurrence,drivinglicenceofthedriver,insurancepolicy(and ifnecessary,fitnesscertificate)ofthevehicleandpostmortem report(incaseofdeath)ortheinjuredordependentfamily members of the deceased should also be furnished to the Tribunal. (iii)Simultaneously,acopyoftheAIRwithannexuresthereto shall be furnished to the Insurance Company concerned to enabletheinsurertoprocesstheclaim. (iv) Thepoliceshallnotifythefirstdateofhearingfixedby theTribunaltothevictim(injured)orthefamilyofthevictim (in case of death) and the driver, owner and insurer. If so directedbytheTribunal,thepolicemaysecuretheirpresence onthefirstdateofhearing. B)DirectionstotheClaimsTribunals: The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to instructallClaimsTribunalsinhisStatetoregisterthereports of accidents received under Sec. 158(6) of the Act as applications forcompensationunderSec.166(4)ofthe Act and deal with them without waiting for the filing of claim applicationsbytheinjuredorbythefamilyofthedeceased. The Registrar General shall ensure that necessary registers, formsandothersupportisextendedtotheTribunaltogive effecttoSec.166(4)oftheAct.
ForcomplyingwithSec.166(4)oftheAct,thejurisdictional MotorAccidentsClaimsTribunalsshallinitiatethefollowing steps: (a) The Tribunal shall maintain an institution register for recordingthe AIRs.whichare receivedfromthe StationHouse Officersofthepolicestationsandregisterthemasmiscellaneous petitions. If any private claim petitions are directly filed with referencetoanAIR,theyshouldalsoberecordedintheregister. (b)TheTribunalshalllisttheAIRs.asmiscellaneouspetitions.It shallfixadateforpreliminaryhearingsoastoenablethepolice tonotifysuchdatetothevictim(familyofthevictimintheevent ofdeath)andtheowner,driverandinsurerofthevehicleinvolved intheaccident.Once,theclaimant(s)appear,themiscellaneous application shall be converted to claim petition. Where a claimant(s)filetheclaimpetitionevenbeforethereceiptofthe AIRbytheTribunal,theAIRmaybetaggedtotheclaimpetition. (c) The Tribunal shall enquire and satisfy itself that the AIR relatestoarealaccidentandisnottheresultofanycollusionand fabricationofanaccident(byany"policeofficerAdvocatedoctor" nexus,whichhascometolightinseveralcases). (d) The Tribunal shall by a summary enquiry ascertain the dependent familymembers/legalheirs.The jurisdictionalpolice shallalsoenquireandsubmitthenamesofthedependentlegal heirs. (e)TheTribunalshallcategorisetheclaimcasesregistered,into those where the insurer disputes liability and those where the
insurerdoesnotdisputetheliability. (f)Wherevertheinsurerdoesnotdisputetheliabilityunderthe policy, the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to determine the compensationamountbyasummaryenquiryorreferthematter to the Lok Adalat for settlement,soasto dispose ofthe claim petitionitself,withinatimeframenotexceedingsixmonthsfrom thedateofregistrationoftheclaimpetition. (g) The Insurance Companies shall be directed to deposit the admitted amount or the amount determined, with the Claims Tribunalswithin30daysofdetermination.TheTribunalsshould ensurethatthecompensationamountiskeptinafixeddeposit anddisbursedasperthedirectionscontainedinKeralaS.R.T.C.v. SusammaThomas,1994(2)SCC176. (h)AstheproceedinginitiatedinpursuanceofSecs.158(6)and 166(4)oftheActaredifferentinnaturefromanapplicationby the victims(s) under Sec. 166(1) of the Act, Sec. 170 will not apply.TheinsurerswillthereforebeentitledtoassisttheTribunal (eitherindependentlyorwiththeownersofthevehicles)toverify thecorrectnessinregardtotheaccident,injuries,age,incomeand dependants of the deceased victim and in determining the quantumofcompensation. C)Directionwithrespecttoinvestment: InparaNo.28&29ofJaiPrakash'scase(supra)ithasbeenheldas under: 28.Toprotectandpreservethecompensationamountawardedto
the families of the deceased victim special schemes may be considered by the Insurance Companies in consultation with Life InsuranceCorporationofIndia,StateBankofIndiaoranyother NationalisedBanks.Oneproposalisforformulationofaschemein consultation with the Nationalised Banks under which the compensationiskeptinafixeddepositforanappropriateperiod andinterestispaidbytheBankmonthlytotheclaimantswithout anyneedfortheclaimantshavingtoapproacheithertheCourtor their Counsel or the Bank for that purpose. The scheme should ensure that the amount of compensation is utilised only for the benefitoftheinjuredclaimantsorincaseofdeath,forthebenefitof thedependentfamily. 29.Weextractbelowtheparticularsofaspecialschemeofferedbya NationalisedBankattheinstanceoftheDelhiHighCourt: (i)Thefixeddepositshallbeautomaticallyrenewedtilltheperiod prescribedbytheCourt. (ii)Theinterestonthefixeddepositshallbepaidmonthly. (iii)Themonthlyinterestshallbecreditedautomaticallyinthesavings accountoftheclaimant. (iv)OriginalfixeddepositreceiptshallberetainedbytheBankinsafe custody. However, the original passbook shall be given to the claimantalongwiththephotocopyoftheF.D.R. (v) The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the claimantattheendofthefixeddepositperiod. (vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the
withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bankoftheidentitycardoftheclaimant. (vii) No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without the permissionoftheCourt. (viii)Noloan,advanceorwithdrawalshallbeallowedonthefixed depositwithoutthepermissionoftheCourt. (ix) The claimant can operate the Savings Bank account from the nearestbranchofU.CO.Bankandontherequestoftheclaimant, theBankshallprovidethesaidfacility.
11
4.HowtodecideaclaimpetitionwhereinFatalInjuriesweresustainedby thedeceased: 4.1 InSarlaVermav/sDelhiTransportCorporation,reportedin2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)=AIR2009SC3104guidelinesfordeterminationof multiplier,futureprospectsofthedeceased,deductiontowardspersonal andlivingexpendituresareissued.Theratiolaiddowninthecaseof SarlaVerma(supra)wasconsideredbytheThreeHon'bleJudgesofthe Hon'bleApexCourt inthecaseofReshmaKumariv/sMadanMohan, reportedin2013ACJ1253(SC)anditisheldthatratiolaiddowninthe caseofSaralVerma(supra)shouldbefollowedbythealltheTribunals. TheprincipleslaiddowninthecaseofSralaVeramandReshmaKumari (supra) qua determination of multiplier, future prospects of the deceased, deduction towards personal and living expenditures are as under: a)ChoiceofMultiplier:
Age of the Deceased Upto 15 years 15 to 20 years 21 to 25 years 26 to 30 years 31 to 35 years 36 to 40 years 41 to 45 years 46 to 50 years 51 to 55 years 56 to 60 years 61 to 65 years Above 65 years 12 Multiplier 15 18 18 17 16 15 14 13 11 9 7 5 MACP Reference Manual
b)WhatshouldbethemultiplierinthecaseofFatalinjurycase, wheredeceasedwasunmarriedson/daughter: Therearedifferenceofopinionastowhatshouldbethemultiplierin the case of fatal injury case, where deceased was unmarried son/daughter.InShyamSingh,reportedin 2011(7)SCC65=2011 ACJ1990(SC),ithasbeenheldthatMultiplierinthecaseofdeathof unmarried son/daughter, proper multiplier should be arrived at by assessingaverageageofparentsofthedeceased.Butdifferentviews aretakenbyHon'bleApexCourtinthecasesofP .S.Somnathanv/s Dist.InsuranceOfficer, reportedin 2011ACJ737(SC), AmritBhanu Shaliv/sNICom.,reportedin2012ACJ2002(SC),Saktideviv/sNI Com,reportedin2010(14)SCC575andReshmaKumariv/sMadan Mohan,reportedin2013ACJ1253(SC).Intheabovereferredcasesit has been held that in the case of deathof unmarried son/daughter, multipliershouldbeaappliedonthebasisofageofthedeceasedand notonthebasisofaverageageoftheparentsofthedeceased. c)FutureProspectofDeceased: In para No.11 of the Srala Verama's (supra) judgment it is held as under: In view of imponderablesanduncertainties,weare infavour of adoptingasaruleofthumb,anadditionof50%ofactualsalaryto theactualsalaryincomeofthedeceasedtowardsfutureprospects. wherethedeceasedhadapermanentjobandwasbelow40years. [Wheretheannualincomeisinthetaxablerange,thewords'actual
salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax']. The addition shouldbeonly30%iftheageofthedeceasedwas40to50years. Thereshouldbenoaddition,wheretheageofdeceasedismorethan 50years.Thoughtheevidencemayindicateadifferentpercentageof increase,itisnecessarytostandardizetheadditiontoavoiddifferent yardsticksbeingappliedordifferentmethodsofcalculationsbeing adopted.Wherethedeceasedwasselfemployedorwasonafixed salary(withoutprovisionforannualincrementsetc.),thecourtswill usuallytakeonlytheactualincomeatthetimeofdeath.Adeparture therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involvingspecialcircumstances. 4.2 From the above referred observations, it becomes clear that
where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years (wheretheannualincomeisinthetaxablerange,thewords'actual salary'shouldbereadas'actualsalary,lesstax'),additionshouldbe 50% and if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years, additionshouldbeonly30%andthereshouldbenoaddition,where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. In the cases where the deceasedwasselfemployedorwasonafixedsalary,withoutprovision forannualincrementsetc.,theTribunalcanusuallytakeonlytheactual incomeatthetimeofdeath. 4.3 It is also required to be born in mind that House Rent
Allowance, Medical Allowance, Dearness Allowance, Dearness Pay, Employees Provident Fund, Government Insurance Scheme, General
ProvidentFund,C.C.A.etcshouldbetreatedaspartandparcelofthe incomeofthedeceased,whilecalculatingincomeofthedeceasedfor the purpose ofcomputingcompensation.Reference maybe made to ratiolaiddownbyHon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofSunilSharmav/s BachitarSingh,reportedin2011ACJ1441(SC)alsoseeVimalKanwar v/sKishoreDan,reportedin2013ACJ1441. 4.4 Now,thequestionis,whenadeparturefromtheabovereferred guidelineshouldbemade?Inthisregards,referenceisrequiredtobe madetotheratiolaiddowninthecaseof K.R.Madhusudhanv/s AdministrativeOfficer,reportedinAIR2011SC979.Inthesaidcase deceasedwasaged53yearsandwasworkingasSeniorAssistantin KarnatakaElectricityBoard.AsperBoardAgreement,aftercompletion offiveyears,payrevisionwascompulsoryandevidencewasproduced bytheclaimantsshowingthatifdeceasedwouldhavebeenalivehe would have reached gross salary of Rs. 20,000/ p.m. Hence, even thoughdeceasedwasabove50yearsofage,itisheldthatclaimants areentitledtocompensationcalculatedonthebasisofsuchincreased income. d)DeductiontowardsPersonalandLivingExpenditures: 4.5InParaNo.14ofSarlaVeram'scase(supra)itisheldasunder: Havingconsideredseveralsubsequentdecisionsofthiscourt,weare of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towardspersonalandlivingexpensesofthedeceased,shouldbeone
third(1/3rd)wherethenumberofdependentfamilymembersis2to 3,onefourth(1/4th)wherethenumberofdependantfamilymembers is4to6,andonefifth(1/5th)wherethenumberofdependantfamily membersexceedsix. 4.6InParaNo.14ofSarlaVeram'scase(supra)itisheldasunder: Wherethedeceasedwasabachelorandtheclaimantsaretheparents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally,50%isdeductedaspersonalandlivingexpenses,becauseit isassumedthatabachelorwouldtendtospendmoreonhimself.Even otherwise,thereisalsothepossibilityofhisgettingmarriedinashort time,inwhicheventthecontributiontotheparentsandsiblingsis likelytobecutdrastically.
4.7 Meaningthereby,thedeductiontowardspersonalandlivingexpenses
of the deceased, should be onethird (1/3 rd) where the number of dependantfamilymembersislessthan3,onefourth(1/4 th)wherethe number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and onefifth (1/5 th) wherethenumberofdependantfamilymembersexceedsix.Andinthe cases where deceased was unmarried son/daughter, the deduction towardspersonalandlivingexpensesofthedeceased,shouldbeonehalf. 4.7.1.IthasbeenfurtherheldinParaNo.15ofSarlaVerma'scase(supra) that: Further,subjecttoevidencetothecontrary,thefatherislikelytohave hisownincomeandwillnotbeconsideredasadependantandthe mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of
evidencetothecontrary,brothersandsisterswillnotbeconsideredas dependents,becausetheywilleitherbeindependentandearning,or married,orbedependantonthefather.Thusevenifthedeceasedis survivedbyparentsandsiblings,onlythemotherwouldbeconsidered tobeadependant,and50%wouldbetreatedasthepersonaland living expenses ofthebachelorand50%asthecontributiontothe family.However,wherefamilyofthebachelorislargeanddependant ontheincomeofthedeceased,asinacasewherehehasawidowed motherandlargenumberofyoungernonearningsistersorbrothers, hispersonalandlivingexpensesmayberestrictedtoonethirdand contributiontothefamilywillbetakenastwothird. 4.8 Plainreadingofabovereferredobservations,makesitclearthat, unless, it is proved that father of the deceased was not having independent income, father of the deceased cannot be treated as dependant.Sameanalogyappliesinthecasesofwhereclaimpetitionis preferred by the sibling/s of deceased who was/were unmarried brother/sister of such deceased. But if, it is proved that father of the deceasedwasnothavingindependentincome,fatherofthedeceasedcan betreatedasdependant.Inthecaseswhereclaimpetitionispreferredby themother,sibling/swhoweresolelydependantontheincomeoftheof deceased, in such cases, onethird (1/3 rd) may be deducted towards personalandlivingexpensesofdeceased. 4.9InSralaVeram(supra)ithasbeenheldinpar26that: Inaddition,theclaimantswillbeentitledtoasumofRs.5,000/
under the head of 'loss of estate' and Rs. 5,000/ towards funeral expenses. The widow will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/ as loss of consortium'. 4.10 ButabenchofThreeHon'bleJudgesoftheHon'bleApexCourtin thecaseofRajeshv/sRajbirSingh,reportedin2013ACJ1403hasheld thatclaimantswillbeentitledtoasumofRs.1,00,000/undertheheadof lossofcareandguidanceforminorchildren,Rs.25,000/towardsfuneral expenses and the widow will be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/ as loss of consortium.
18
5.HowtodecideaclaimpetitionwhereinclaimanthassustainedInjuries: 5.1Iftheclaimpetitionispreferredu/s166oftheAct,ininjurycases, choiceofmultiplierremainsthesame,asinthecaseoffatalinjuries cases. Deductions towards personal and living expenditures are not madeininjuriescase.Todeterminethefuturelossofincome,ratiolaid downinthecaseofRajKumarv/sAjayKumar,reportedin2012ACJ1 =2011(1)SCC343isrequiredtobefollowed.Inparagraph6ofthe saiddecision,thevariouselementsofcompensationareenumeratedas under: "Pecuniarydamages(Specialdamages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation,nourishingfoodandmiscellaneousexpenditure. (ii)Lossofearnings(andothergains)whichtheinjuredwould havemadehadhenotbeeninjured,comprising: (a)Lossofearningduringtheperiodoftreatment; (b)Lossoffutureearningsonaccountofpermanentdisability. (iii)Futuremedicalexpenses. Nonpecuniarydamages(Generaldamages) (iv)Damagesforpain,sufferingandtraumaasaconsequenceof theinjuries. (v)Lossofamenities(and/orlossofprospectsofmarriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)".
19
5.2 Compensation in the case, where an injured victim is Government Servant/Salariedperson,whosesalaryhasincreasedaftertheaccidentand hasnotsustainedanyfinancialloss: 5.2.1 Theconceptofawardingcompensationis:thatnoamountof compensationcanrestorethephysicalframeoftheappellant.Thatis whyithasbeensaidbycourtsthatwheneveranyamountisdetermined asthecompensationpayableforanyinjurysufferedduringanaccident, the object is to compensate such injury" so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a brokenandshatteredphysicalframe. 5.2.2 Hon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofRajKumarv/sAjayKumar,
reportedin2011ACJ1=2011(1)SCC343,hasheldinparaNo.10as under: Ontheotherhand,iftheclaimantwasaclerkingovernment service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employmentandhemaystillbecontinuedasaclerkashecould performhisclericalfunctions;andinthateventthelossofearning capacitywillnotbe100%asinthecaseofadriverorcarpenter, nor60%whichistheactualphysicaldisability,butfarless.Infact, theremaynotbeanyneedtoawardanycompensationunderthe head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation undertheheadoflossofamenitiesasaconsequenceoflosinghis
20
hand... 5.2.3 Reference is also required to be made to ratio laid down by Hon'bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofGurdipsinhs/oBisensingh Sadhuvs.ChauhanBhupendrakumarUdesing,reportedin1980GLR 221.Inthesaidjudgment,itisheldthattheCourtcanmakerough estimate about loss of earning capacity in the light of the facts and circumstancesandtheavailabledataofmedicalevidenceonrecord.In the said case, Hon'ble HighCourt hadestimatedthe loss ofearning capacityat25%ofactualincomeandclaimantwasawardedRs.45,000, thoughtherewasnoimmediatereductioninhissalaryasaTechnical AssistantinO.N.G.C.Relyinguponthesaiddecision,Hon'bleDivision bench of Gujarat High Court has held in the case of Mohanbhai Gemabhaivs.BalubhaiSavjibhai,reportedin1993(1)GLR249(para 20)that: Nodoubt,itisimperativefortheTribunaltoconsiderthefacts andcircumstances,andthemedicalevidence,showingtheextentof physicalimpairment.Ifnopreciseanddirectevidenceshowingthe percentageorextentofthedisablementisspeltout,theTribunal canmakeroughandreasonableestimateoflossofearningcapacity soastodeterminethejustamountofcompensationunderthehead of'prospectiveeconomicloss'. 5.2.4 EventheobservationsofHouseofLords,reportedin1912AC
496 are very relevant and same can be taken into consideration. Referencerequiredtobemadetotheratiolaiddownin2013ACJ79
para20. From the above referred ratios of Hon'ble Apex Court and
5.2.5
Hon'bleGujaratHighCourt,itbecomesclearthatTribunalcangrant compensation to those injured persons who have not suffered any financiallossorwhosesalaryincomehaveactuallyincreasedafterthe dateofaccidentandsuchcompensationshouldnotbeunderthehead of'lossofFutureEarnings'butundertheheadof'LossoffAmenities' Such claimants are entitled for such amount of compensation, calculatedonthebasisof1/4th ofthenetsalaryincome,whichthey weregettingatthetimeofaccident. 5.3DeterminationofpermanentPartialDisablementoftheclaimant:
5.3.1.
Inthecaseswhereinjuredhadsustainedmorethatonefracture
injuries,itmayappeartoTribunalthatdisabilitycertificateissuedby the Doctor depicts the higher value of disability than the injured claimant has actually sustained. In such situation, Ld. Judge of the Tribunal finds it difficult to arrive at the exact amount of disability sustained by the injured claimant. Normally, Doctors issue disability certificateonthebasisofformulainventedbyDr.HenryH.Kesslerin his book titled as 'Disability Determination & Evaluation'. For determinationofdisabilityinsuchcases,Doctorsapplyformulaevolved byDr.HenryH.Kessler.SaidFormulareadsasunder: A+{[B(100A)]/100}
5.3.2.
In the said formula, 'A' stands for higher value of partial
disablement,whereas'B'standsforlowervalueofpartialdisablement. Doctors normally, takedisadvantageofthecommentsgiven onpage No.49 of the above referred book. Careful reading of the said comments,leadstotheconclusionthatwheninjuredvictim/claimant hassustainedinjuries,whichresultedintotwoormorefracturesontwo different limbs of the body, then in such situation disablement in relation to whole body may be assessed as per the above referred formula.Butabovereferredformuladoesnotapplyinthecaseswhere claimanthassustainedtwoormorefracturesonthesamelimbi.eone fractureonrighthandandsecondonlefthandoronefractureonright lagandsecondontheleftleg.Itisalsomentionedinthesaidbookthat lowerpartofthebodyi.e.legsorupperpartofbodyi.e.twohandsare consideredas onelimbofthebody(lowerlimborupperlimb)and when victim/claimant has sustained fractures on the one particular limb then in such case, disablement in relation to whole may be assessedasonehalfofthepermanentpartialdisablementassessedby the doctor. Say for an example, claimant has sustained one fracture injuryonrightleganddoctorhasassesseddisabilityinrelationtoright lowerlimbas27%andsecondfractureinjuryonleftleganddoctorhas assesseddisabilityinrelationtoleftlowerlimbas7%andif,weapply simple principle in the facts of the above referred example, the disablementinrelationtowholebody,comesto17%.(27%inrelation torightlowerlimbpluspermanentpartialimpairmentof7%inrelation toleftlowerlimb,dividedbytwo[27%+7%]/2).But,ifweapply the above referred formula, disablement in relation to whole body
comesto32.11%. {27+[7(10027)/100]}.Fromtheabove referred discussion, it becomes clear that when victim/claimant has sustained more than one fractures on one limb and when victim/claimanthassustainedmorethanonefracturesontwolimbs, assessmentofdisablementinrelationtowholebodyisrequiredtobe assessedbyapplyingdifferentformulas.BookwrittenbyDr.HenryH. Kessler,namely,'DisabilityDetermination&Evaluation'isconsidered to be the authority as far as calculation of permanent partial disablementisconcerned.However,itistobenotedthatDr.HenryH. Kesslerhasalsomentionedinhisbookthatthereisalwaysvariationof plus/minus5%,inthepermanentpartialdisablementassessedbythe doctor.Therefore,whiledecidingpermanentpartialimpairmentofthe injuredclaimant,abovereferredfactsarerequiredtoberemembered. Reference may also be made to 'Manual For Doctors To
5.3.3
EvaluatePermanentPhysicalImpairment', whichisbasedonexpert group meeting on disability evaluation and national seminar on disability evaluation and dissemination, G.G.H.S. W.H.O. A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi 1981. Reference may also be made to 'Disability GuidelinesissuedbyOfficeofChiefCommissionerforPersonswith
st Disabilities, dated 1 June 2001 . Guidelines issued in the above
referredreportsareasunder: 5.3.3.1. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment in UpperLimbs: 1. The estimation of permanent impairment depends upon the
measurementoffunctional impairment,andisnotexpressionofapersonalopinion. 2.Theestimationandmeasurementmustbemadewhentheclinical conditionisfixedand unchangeable. 3.Theupperextremityisdividedintotwocomponentpartsthearm componentandthe handcomponent. 4.Measurementofthelossoffunctionofarmcomponentconsistsin measuringtheloss ofmotion,musclestrengthancoordinatedactivities. 5.Measurementofthelossoffunctionofhandcomponentconsistsin determining the Prehension,Sensation & Strength.For estimation of Prehension : Opposition, lateral pinch, Cylindrical grasp, spherical graspandhookgrasphavetobeassessedasshowninthecolumnof prehensioncomponentintheproforma. 6.Theimpairmentoftheentireextremitydependsonthecombination ofthefunctionalimpairmentofbothcomponents. ARMCOMPONENT: Totalvalueofarmcomponentis90%. PrinciplesofEvaluationofrangeofmotionofjoints 1.ThevalueformaximumR.O.M.inthearmcomponentis90%. 2.Eachofthethreejointsofthearmisweightedequally(30%). Example A.fractureoftherightshoulderjointmayaffectrangeofmotionsothat
active adduction is 90degree. The left shoulder exhibits a range of activeabductionof180degree.Hencethereislossof50%ofabduction movementoftherightshoulder.Thepercentagelossofarmcomponent in the shoulder is 50 x 0.03 or 15% loss of motion for the arm component. Ifmorethanonejointisinvolved,samemethodisapplied,andthe lossesineachoftheaffectedjointsareadded. Sayforexample: Lossofabductionoftheshoulder=60% Lossofextensionofthewrist=40% Then,lossofrangeofmotionforthe arm=(60x0.30)+(40x0.30)=30% PrinciplesofEvaluationofstrengthofmuscles: 1.Strengthofmusclescanbetestedbymanualtestinglike05grading. 2.Manualmusclegradingscanbegivenpercentageslike 3.100% 4.80% 5.60% 6.40% 7.20% 8.0% 9.Themeanpercentageofmusclestrengthlossismultipliedby0.30. Iftherehasbeenalossofmusclestrengthofmorethanonejoint,the valuesareaddedashasbeendescribedforlossofrangeofmotion.
26
PrinciplesofEvaluationofcoordinatedactivities: 1.Thetotalvalueforcoordinatedactivitiesis90%. 2.Tendifferentcoordinatedactivitiesaretobetestedasgiveninthe Proforma. 3.Eachactivityhasavalueof9%. CombiningvaluesfortheArmComponent: 1. The value of loss of function of arm component is obtained by combining the values of range of movement, muscle strength & co ordinatedactivities,usingthecombiningformula A+b(90a)/90 Where'a'=highervalue&'b'=lowervalue Example Letusassumethatanindividualwithafractureoftherightshoulder jointhasinadditionto16.5%lossofmotionofhisarm,8.3%lossof strengthofmuscles,and5%lossofcoordination.Wecombinethese valuesas: Rangeofmotion:16.5% StrengthofMuscles:8.3% Coordination:5% 23.3+5(9023.3)/90=27.0% Sototalvalueofarmcomponent=27.0% HANDCOMPONENT: Totalvalueofhandcomponentis90%. Thefunctionalimpairmentofhandisexpressedaslossofprehension, lossofsensation,lossofstrength.
16.5+8.3(9016.5)/90=23.3%
PrinciplesofEvaluationofPrehension: TotalvalueofPrehensionis30%.Itincludes: (A)Opposition(8%).Testedagainst Indexfinger(2%).Middlefinger(2%) Ringfinger(2%)&Littlefinger(2%) (B)LateralPinch(5%).Testedbyaskingthepatienttoholdakey. (C)CylindricalGrasp(6%).Testedfor (D)Largeobjectof4inchsize(3%) (E)Smallobjectof1inchsize(3%) (F)SphericalGrasp(6%).Testedfor (G)Largeobject4inchsize(3%) (H)Smallobject1inchsize(3%) (I)HookGrasp(5%).Testedbyaskingthepatienttoliftabag. PrinciplesofEvaluationofSensations: Totalvalueofsensationis30%.Itincludes: 1.GripStrength(20%) 2.PinchStrength(10%) 3. Strength will be tested with hand dynamometer or by clinical method(GripMethod). 10%additionalweightagetobegiventothefollowingfactors: 1.Infection 2.Deformity 3.Malaignment 4.Contractures 5.Cosmeticappearance
6.AbnormalMobility 7.DominantExtremity(4%) Combiningvaluesofthehandcomponent: Thefinalvalueoflossoffunctionofhandcomponentisobtainedby summingupvaluesoflossofprehension,sensationandstrength. CombiningValuesfortheExtremity: Values of impairment of arm component and impairment of hand componentarecombinedbyusingthecombiningformula. Example Impairmentofthearm=27% Impairmentofthehand=64% 5.3.3.2. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment in LowerLimbs: The lower extremity is divided into two components: Mobility componentandStabilitycomponent. MOBILITYCOMPONENT: Total value of mobility component is 90%. It includes range of movementandmusclestrength. PrinciplesofEvaluationofRangeofMovement: 1Thevalueofmaximumrangeofmovementinthemobilitycomponent is90%. 2. Each of the three joints i.e. hip, knee, footankle component, is
64+27(9064)/90=71.8%
weightedequally0.30. Example AFractureoftherighthipjointmayaffectrangeofmotionsothat active abduction is 27degree. The lift hip exhibits a range of active abduction of 54degree. Hence, there is loss of 50% of abduction movementoftherighthip.Thepercentagelossofmobilitycomponent inthehipis50,0.30or15%lossofmotionforthemobilitycomponent. If more than one joint is involved, same method is applied and the lossesineachoftheaffectedjointsareadded. Example Lossofabductionofthehip=60% Lossofextensionftheknee=40% Lossofrangeofmotionforthemobilitycomponent =(60x0.30)+(40x0.03)=30%. PrinciplesofEvaluationofMuscleStrength: 1.Thevalueformaximummusclestrengthinthelegis90%. 2.Strengthofmusclescanbetestedbymanualtestinglike05grading. 3.Manualmusclegradingscanbegivenpercentageslike Grade0=100% Grade1=80% Grade2=60% Grade3=40% Grade4=20% Grade5=0%
4.Meanpercentageofmusclestrengthlossismultipliedby0.30. 5.Iftherehasbeenalossofmusclestrengthofmorethanonejoint,the valuesareaddedashasbeendescribedforlossofrangeofmotion. CombiningValuesfortheMobilityComponent: Letusassumethattheindividualwithafractureoftherighthipjoint hasinadditionto16%lossofmotion8%lossofstrengthofmuscles. CombingValues: Motion16%,Strength8% =16+8(9016)/90=22.6% Where'a'=highervalue,'b'=lowervalue. STABILITYCOMPONENT: 1.Totalvalueofstabilitycomponentis90% 2.Itistestedby2methods 3.Basedonscalemethod. 4.Basedonclinicalmethod Threedifferentreadings(inkilograms)aretakenmeasuringthetotal bodyweight(W),scaleAreadingandscaleBreading.Thefinalvalue isobtainedbytheformula: DifferenceinbodyweightdividedbyTotalbodyweight,multipliedby 90. Intheclinicalmethodofevaluationninedifferentactivitiesaretobe testedasgivenintheproforma.Eachactivityhasavalueoftenpercent (10%).
31
5.3.3.4. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment of Trunk(Spine): Thelocaleffectsoflesionsofspinecanbedividedintotraumaticand nontraumaticlesions. TRAUMATICLESIONS CervicalSpineFracture Percent Whole body Permanent Physical Impairment and Loss of PhysicalFunctiontoWholeBody. A.Vertebralcompression25%,oneortwovertebraladjacentbodies,no fragmentation, no involvement of posterior elements, no nerve root involvement,moderateneckrigidityandpersistentsoreness. B. Posterior elements with Xray evidence of moderate partial dislocation. (a)Nonerverootinvolvement,healed15 (b)Withpersistentpain,withmildmotorandsensoryManifestations 25 (c)Withfusion,healednopermanentmotororsensorychanges25 C.Severedislocation,fairtogoodreductionwithsurgicalfusion (a)Noresidualmotororsensorychanges25 (b) Poor reduction with fusion, persistent radicular pain, motor involvement,onlyslightweaknessandnumbness35 (c)Sameas(b)withpartialparalysis,determineadditionalratingfor lossofuseofextremitiesandsphincters. CervicalIntervertebralDisc:
1.Operative,successfulremovalofdisc,withreliefofacutepain,no fusion,noneurologicalresidual10 2. Same as (1) with neurological manifestations, persistent pain, numbness,weaknessinfingers20 ThoracicandDorsolumbarSpineFracture: Percent Whole body Permanent Physical Impairment and Loss of PhysicalFunctiontoWholeBody A. Compression25%,involvingoneortwovertebralbodies,mild,no fragmentation,healednoneurologicalmanifestations.10 B.Compression50%,withinvolvementposteriorelements,healed,no neurologicalmanifestations,persistentpain,fusionindicated.20 C.Sameas(B)withfusion,painonlyonheavyuseofback.20 D.Totalparaplegia.100 E. Posteriorelements,partialparalysiswithorwithoutfusion,should beratedforlossofuseofextremitiesandsphincters. LowLumbar: 1.Fracture 2.Vertebral compression25%,oneortwoadjacentvertebralbodies, littleorfragmentation,nodefinitepatternorneurologicalchanges.15 3.Compressionwithfragmentationposteriorelements,persistentpain, weaknessandstiffness,healed,nofusion,noliftingover25pounds 40 4.Sameas(B),healedwithfusion,mildpain20
5.Sameas(B),nerverootinvolvementtolowerextermities,determine additionalratingforlossofindustrialfunctiontoextremities 6. Same as (c), with fragmentation of posterior elements, with persistentpainafterfusion,noneurologicfindings30 7.Sameas(c),withnerverootinvolvementtolowerextremities,rate withfunctionallosstoextremities 8.Totalparaplegia100 9.Posteriorelements,partialparalysiswithorwithoutfusion,should beratedforlossofuseofextremitiesandsphincters. @.NeurogenicLowBackPainDiscInjury A.Periodicacuteepisodeswithacutepainandpersistentbodylist,tests forsciaticpainpositive,temporaryrecovery5to8weeks50 B.Surgicalexcisionofdisc,nofusion,goodresults,nopersistentsciatic pain10 C. Surgical excision ofdisc,nofusion,moderate persistentpain and stiffness aggravated by heavy lifting with necessary modification of activities20 D.Surgicalexcisionofdiscwithfusion,activitiesofliftingmoderately modified15 E. Surgical excision of disc with fusion, persistent pain and stiffness aggravatedbyheavylifting,necessitatingmodificationofallactivities requiringheavylifting25
34
NONTRAUMATICLESIONS: Scoliosis ThewholeSpinehasbeengivenratingof100%andregionwisethe followingpercentagesaregiven: DorsalSpine50% LumbarSpine30% CervicalSpine20% Kobbsmethodformeasurementofangleofcurveinstandingposition istobeused.Thecurveshavebeendividedintothreesubgroups:
Particulars 30degree (Mild)
Cervical Spine 2.00%
Thoracic spine Lumber Spine 5.00% 15.00% 25.00% 6.00% 12.00% 33.00%
30-60degree 3.00% (Moderate) Above 60degree (Severe) 5.00%
Inthecurvesrangingabove600,cardiopulmonarycomplicationsare to be graded separately. The junctional curves are to be given that ratingdependinguponlevelofapexofcurve.Forexample,ifapexof dorsolumbarcurvefallsinthedorsalspinethecurvecanbetakenasa dorsal curve. When the scoliosis is adequately compensated, 5% reductionistobegivenfromfinalrating(forallassessmentprimary curvesareconsideredforrating).
35
Kyphosis Thesametotalrating(100%)asthatsuggestedforscoliosisistobe givenforkyphosis.Regionwisepercentagesofphysicalimpairmentare: DorsalSpine50% CervicalSpine30% LumbarSpine20% Fordorsalspinethefollowingfurthergradingsare: Lessthan20degree10% 21degree40degree15% 41degree60degree20% Above60degree25% Forkyphosisoflumbarandcervicalspine5%and7%respectivelyhave beenallocated. ParalysisofFlexors&ExtensorsofDorsalandLumbarSpine: Themotorpowerofthesemusclestobegroupedasfollows: Normal Weak Paralysed 5% 10%
ParalysisofMusclesofCervicalSpine:
Particulars Flexors Extensors Rotation Normal 0 0 0 Weak 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Paralysed 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%
Side Bending 0
36
Miscellaneous: Thoseconditionsofthespinewhichcausestiffnessandpartetc.,are ratedasfollows: A. Subjective symptoms of pain, No involuntary muscle spasm, Not substantiatedbydemonstrablestructuralpathology. demonstrableandradiologicalchanges. 10% 15% 0 B.Pain,Persistentmusclespasmandstiffnessofspine,substantiatedby C.SameasB,withmoderateradiologicalchanges. regionofspine(cervical,dorsalorlumbar) E.SameasD,involvingwholespine 30% 20%
D.SameasB,withsevereradiologicalchangesinvolvinganyoneofthe
In Kyphoscoliosis, both curves to be assessed separately and then percentageofdisabilitytobesummed. 5.3.3.5. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment in Amputees: BasicGuidelines: 1. In case of multiple amputees, if the total sum of percentage permanentphysicalimpairmentisabove100%,itshouldbetakenas 100%. 2.Amputationatanylevelwithuncorrectableinabilitytowearanduse prosthesis,shouldbegiven100%permanentphysicalimpairment. 3.Incaseofamputationinmorethanonelimbpercentageofeachlimb is counted and another 10% will be added, but when only toes or fingersareinvolvedonlyanother5%willbeadded. 4.Anycomplicationinformofstiffness,neuroma,infectionetc.hasto
begivenatotalof10%additionalweightage. 5.Dominantupperlimbhasbeengiven4%extrapercentage. UpperLimbAmputation:
Sr. No Particulars of Amputation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Fore-quarter Shoulder Disarticulation Above Elbow upto upper 1/3 of arm Above Elbow upto lower 1/3 of arm Elbow Disarticulation Below Elbow upto upper 1/3 of forearm Below Elbow upto lower 1/3 of forearm Wrist Disarticulation Hand through carpal bones Thumb through C.M. or through 1st M.C. Joint Thumb Disarticulation through metacarpophalangeal joint or through proximal phalanx
Permanent Partial Impairment, in % 100 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 30 25
12
Thumb Disarticulation through 15 inter phalangeal joint or through distal phalanx
38
AmputationofFinger:
Particulars IIndex Finger Middle Ring Little Finger Finger Finger
Amputation through 1 15.00% 5.00% 3.00% 2.00% proximal phalanx or disarticulation through MP joint Amputation through 1 10.00% 4.00% 2.00% 1.00% middle phalanx or disarticulation through PIP joint Amputation through distal 5 5.00% phalanx or disarticulation through DIP joint 2.00% 1.00% 1.00%
LowerLimbAmputations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Hindquarter 100% Hipdisarticulation 90% Abovekneeuptoupper1/3ofthigh85% Abovekneeuptolower1/3ofthigh80% Throughkeen 75% B.K.upto8cm 70% B.K.uptolower1/3ofleg 60% Throughankle 55% Syme's 50% Uptomidfoot 40% Uptoforefoot 30% Alltoes 20% Lossoffirsttoe 10% Lossofsecondtoe 5% Lossofthirdtoe 4% Lossoffourthtoe 3% Lossoffifthtoe 2%
39
5.4Whatshouldbetheamountofcompassioninthecaseswhereinjured lostoneofthelimb(amputation): 5.4.1. Hon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofGovindYadavv/sN.I.A.Com., reportedin2012(1)TAC1(SC)=2012ACJ28(SC)hasheldthatas thecostoflivingandcostofartificiallimb(prosthetic)hassubstantially increasedand,therefore,Rs.2,00,000/tobeawardedunderthesaid head.Rs.1,50,000/eachtobeawardedundertheheadsofpain,shock &sufferingsandspecialdiet,attendance&transportationandlossof amenities and enjoyment of life, respectively. And if injured is unmarried and his/her prospects for marriage have considerably reduced,Rs.1,00,000/maybeawarded. 5.5WhetherDependantsoftheinjuredclaimantwhodiedhisnaturaldeath duringthependencyoftheclaimpetitionareentitledtogetanyamountof compensation: 5.5.1. MaximActioPersonalisMoriturcumPersonaisapplicablein suchcases.EvenprovisionsofSection306(alongwithIllustrations)of Indian Succession Act, 1925 would apply. In the cases of Pravabati Ghosh&Anr.Vs.GautamDas&Ors.,reportedin2006(Suppl)1GLT 15,relyingontheratiolaiddownbytheHon'bleApexCourtinthecase ofMelepurathSankunniEzuthassanv/sThekittilGeopalankuttyNair, reportedin1986(1)SCC118,andthecaseofM.Veerappav/sEvelyn Sequeria&Ors.,reportedin1988(1)SCC556,hasheldinparagraph8 ofthejudgmentthus: therighttosuewillnotsurviveinfavourofhisrepresentatives,for,
insuchanappeal,whatthelegalrepresentativesofsuchaclaimant wouldbedoingistoaskforcompensationandtherighttoaskfor compensationtobeawardeddoesnotsurviveiftheclaimantdies before the claim for compensation is awarded or decreed in his favour,thecauseofdeathnotbeingtheinjuriessustainedbythe deceasedclaimant. 5.5.2. From the above referred ratio it becomes clear that if the claimantdiesbeforetheclaimforcompensationisawardedordecreed in his favour is passed, claim petition at the behest of the legal representativeofthesuchinjuredclaimantisnotmaintainable.
41
6.Howtodeterminemonthlyincomeofthedeceasedorinjuredwhenno documentinsupportthereofisnotproduced: 6.1 InthecaseofGovindYadav(supra),paraNo.17ithasbeenheldthat whenthereisnoproofofincome,incomeofthedeceasedorinjured claimant shall be decided by taking into consideration prevalence minimumwages. 6.2 SeveralStateGovernmenthaveissuednotificationsoftherelatingto MinimumWagesAct,1948(hereinafterreferredas'1948Act').Details ofsuchnotificationsareunder: 6.2.1. Governments of National Territory of Delhi has revised minimum rates of wages applicable to all Scheduled Employees covered under the 1948 Act, vide Notification dated 12.09.2008, effectivefrom01.08.2008.
Categories Un-Skilled Semi Skilled Skilled Rates in Rupees 3633 3799 4057 Dearness Allowance 50 50 50 Rates per month 3683 3849 4107 Rates per Day 142 148 158
6.2.2.
Rates applicable to Clerical and NonTechnical Supervisory
Staff:
Categories Nonmatriculates Matriculates but not graduates Rates in Rupees 3826 4081 Dearness Allowance 50 50 Rates per month 3876 4131 Rates per Day 149 159
Graduates and 4393 above
50
4443
171
42
6.2.3.
Government of National Territory of Delhi has revised
minimum rates of wages applicable to all Scheduled Employees covered under the 1948 Act, vide Notification dated 26.07.2011, effectivefrom01.04.2011.
Occupation
Wages per month in Rupees 6422 7098 7826 7098 7826 8502
Wages per day in Rupees 247 273 301 273 301 327
Un-Skilled:- Peon, Watchman, Sweeper, Waterman, Cleaner etc. Semi-Skilled:- Bus conductor, Asst. Electrician, Asst. Plumber, Asst. Carpenter etc. Skilled:- Liberian, Lab Assistant, Driver, Physical Instructor, Electrician, Plumber, Carpenter etc. Non-matriculates Matriculates but not graduates Graduates and above
6.2.4. Government of Gujarat has fixed the following rates (in Rupees) as minimum Wages, w.e.f. 01.04.2013. Workers/Employees Category of Workers Agriculture Other Schedule Employees Other Schedule Employees Other Schedule Employees Un-Skilled Semi-Skilled Skilled Basis Rates per D.A. per Day day 100 130-135 135-140 140-150 Total per day
No 100 Provision 70 70 70 200-205 205-210 210-220
6.2.5. Data prior to 2008 is not available but it may be obtained from the office of Labour Commissioner. 43 MACP Reference Manual
7. How to determine income of the deceased or injured claimant when there is documentary evidence on record to show that the deceased or injuredclaimantwasearninginforeigncurrencyandnotinIndianRupee: Hon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofUnitedIndiaInsuranceCo.Ltdv/s
7.1
S.Malarvizhi,decidedon6June,2013hasheldthatwhenthedeceased orinjuredclaimantwasgettingsalaryinforeigncurrency,theninsuch situation such foreign salary/income should be convertedinto Indian Rupee,attheratesapplicableatthetimeofaccidentanddeductionof higherpercentageof60%oftheincomeandlowmultipliershouldbe applied. 7.2 ReferencemayalsobemadetoratiolaiddowninthecaseofInthe
case of United India Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s Patricia Jean Mahajan, reportedin2002(6)SCC281=2002ACJ1481=2002(4)Supreme 518.SaidcasebeforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtaroseoutofaclaim madeonbehalfoftheDoctorofIndianoriginwhobecametheAmerican citizen andwas killedin aroadaccidentwhen he visitedIndia.The claim for compensation was based upon the income in the foreign countryandwhileconsideringthesaidcase,amongotherthings,the Hon'bleSupremeCourtobservedthatthetotalamountofcompensation would work out to Rs.16.12 crores with interest and looking to the IndianEconomy,fiscalandfinancialsituation,theamountiscertainlya fabulousamountthoughinthebackgroundofAmericanconditionsit maynotbeso.Itwasfurtherheldthatwhenthereissomuchdisparity in the economic conditionsand affluence of two places viz. place to
whichthevictimbelongandtheplaceatwhichthecompensationisto be paid, a golden balance must be struck somewhere, to arrive at a reasonableandfaircompensation.LookingbytheIndianstandardsthey may not be much too overcompensated and similarly not very much under compensated aswell,in the backgroundofthe countrywhere mostofthedependentbeneficiariesreside.
45
8. How to decide a claim petition where defence of Invalid, Learners Licence & Fake Driving Licence and Defense of Qualification/Badge is taken: 8.1 ReferenceisrequiredtobemadetoratiolaiddownbyHon'bleApex CourtinthecaseofNationalInsuranceCom.Ltd.V/sSwaranSingh, reported in AIR 2004 SC1531,in ParaNo.105it hasbeen held as under: 105:Thesummaryofourfindingstothevariousissuesasraisedin thesepetitionsareasfollows: (i)ChapterXIoftheMotorVehiclesAct,1988providingcompulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurancecoverageofallvehiclesarewiththisparamountobjectand theprovisionsoftheActhavetobesointerpretedastoeffectuatethe saidobject. (ii)Insurerisentitledtoraiseadefenceinaclaimpetitionfiledunder Section163AorSection166oftheMotorVehiclesAct,1988inter aliaintermsofSection149(2)(a)(ii)ofthesaidAct. (iii)Thebreachofpolicyconditione.g.disqualificationofdriveror invaliddrivinglicenceofthedriver,ascontainedinsubsection(2)(a) (ii)ofSection149,havetobeprovedtohavebeencommittedbythe insured foravoidingliabilitybytheinsurer.Mereabsence,fakeor invaliddrivinglicenceordisqualificationofthedriverfordrivingat the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the
46
insureragainsteithertheinsuredorthethirdparties.Toavoidits liabilitytowardsinsured,theinsurerhastoprovethattheinsured wasguiltyofnegligenceandfailedtoexercisereasonablecareinthe matteroffulfillingtheconditionofthepolicyregardinguseofvehicles bydulylicenseddriveroronewhowasnotdisqualifiedtodriveatthe relevanttime. (iv)Theinsurancecompaniesare,however,withaviewtoavoidtheir liabilitymustnotonlyestablishtheavailabledefence(s)raisedinthe saidproceedingsbutmustalsoestablish'breach'onthepartofthe ownerofthevehicle;theburdenofproofwhereforewouldbeonthem. (v)Thecourtcannotlaydownanycriteriaastohowsaidburden wouldbedischarged,inasmuchasthesamewoulddependuponthe factsandcircumstancesofeachcase. (vi)Evenwheretheinsurerisabletoprovebreachonthepartofthe insuredconcerningthepolicyconditionregardingholdingofavalid licencebythedriverorhisqualificationtodriveduringtherelevant period,theinsurerwouldnotbeallowedtoavoiditsliabilitytowards insuredunlessthesaidbreachorbreachesontheconditionofdriving licenceis/aresofundamentalasarefoundtohavecontributedtothe cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditionswouldapply"theruleofmainpurpose"andtheconceptof "fundamentalbreach"toallowdefencesavailabletotheinsuredunder Section149(2)oftheAct. (vii)Thequestionastowhethertheownerhastakenreasonablecare tofindoutastowhetherthedrivinglicenceproducedbythedriver,(a
fakeoneorotherwise),doesnotfulfiltherequirementsoflawornot willhavetobedeterminedineachcase. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person havingalearner'slicence,theinsurancecompanieswouldbeliableto satisfythedecree. (ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section168isempoweredtoadjudicateallclaimsinrespectofthe accidentsinvolvingdeathorofbodilyinjuryordamagetopropertyof third party arising inuseofmotor vehicle.The saidpower ofthe tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimantorclaimantsononesideandinsured,insureranddriveron theother.Inthecourseofadjudicatingtheclaimforcompensation andtodecidetheavailabilityofdefenceordefencestotheinsurer,the Tribunalhasnecessarilythepowerandjurisdictiontodecidedisputes intersebetweeninsurerandtheinsured.Thedecisionrenderedonthe claimsanddisputesintersebetweentheinsurerandinsuredinthe course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the samemannerasprovidedinSection174oftheActforenforcement andexecutionoftheawardinfavouroftheclaimants. (x)WhereonadjudicationoftheclaimundertheActthetribunal arrivesataconclusionthattheinsurerhassatisfactorilyprovedits defence in accordance with the provisions of Sections 149(2) read withsubsection(7),asinterpretedbythisCourtabove,theTribunal candirectthattheinsurerisliabletobereimbursedbytheinsuredfor
thecompensationandotheramountswhichithasbeencompelledto pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal. Such determinationofclaimbytheTribunalwillbeenforceableandthe moneyfoundduetotheinsurerfromtheinsuredwillberecoverable onacertificateissuedbythetribunaltotheCollectorinthesame mannerunderSection174oftheActasarrearsaslandrevenue.The certificatewillbeissuedfortherecoveryasarrearsoflandrevenue onlyif,asrequiredbysubsection(3)ofSection168oftheActthe insuredfailstodeposittheamountawardedinfavouroftheinsurer withinthirtydaysfromthedateofannouncementoftheawardby thetribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in subsection (4) with proviso thereunderandsubsection(5)whichareintendedtocoverspecified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amountpaidunderthecontractofinsuranceonbehalfoftheinsured canbetakenrecourseofbytheTribunalandbeextendedtoclaims and defences of insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudicationoftheirclaimsintersemightdelaythe adjudicationoftheclaimsofthevictims. 8.2 Barereadingofabovereferredobservationsmakesitclear thatmereabsence,fakeorinvaliddrivinglicenceordisqualification ofthedriverfordrivingattherelevanttime,arenotinthemselves defencesavailabletotheinsureragainsteithertheinsuredorthe
49
thirdparties.Toavoiditsliabilitytowardsinsured,theinsurerhas to prove that the insuredwasguilty ofnegligence andfailed to exercisereasonablecareinthematteroffulfillingtheconditionof thepolicyregardinguseofvehiclesbydulylicenseddriverorone who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liabilitymustnotonlyestablishtheavailabledefence(s)raisedin thesaidproceedingsbutmustalsoestablish'breach'onthepartof theownerofthevehicle;theburdenofproofwhereforewouldbe onthem.Evenwheretheinsurerisabletoprovebreachonthepart oftheinsuredconcerningthepolicyconditionregardingholdingof avalidlicencebythedriverorhisqualificationtodriveduringthe relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liabilitytowardsinsuredunlessthesaidbreachorbreachesonthe conditionofdrivinglicenceis/aresofundamentalasarefoundto have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditionswouldapply"the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defencesavailabletotheinsuredunderSection149(2)oftheAct. Ifavehicleatthetimeofaccidentwasdrivenbyapersonhavinga learner'slicence,theinsurancecompanieswouldbeliabletosatisfy thedecree. 8.3 It is also held in Para 105 (ix) and (x) that Tribunal is empowered to pass and order to Pay and Recover against the insurer.
8.4Asfaras,defenceofinsurer quathequalification/badgeofthe licence is concern, same can be decided by relying upon para Nos.42,43&84oftheSwaranSingh'scase.Paras42,43&84 readsasunder: 42.Ifapersonhasbeengivenalicenceforaparticulartypeof vehicleasspecifiedtherein,hecannotbesaidtohavenolicencefor drivinganothertypeofvehiclewhichisofthesamecategorybutof differenttype.Asforexamplewhenapersonisgrantedalicence fordrivingalightmotorvehiclehecandriveeitheracarorajeep anditisnotnecessarythathemusthavedrivinglicencebothfor carandjeepseparately. 43.Furthermore,theinsurancecompanywithaviewtoavoidits liabilities is not only required to show that the conditions laid downunderSection149(2)(a)or(b)aresatisfiedbutisfurther requiredtoestablishthattherehasbeenabreachonthepartof theinsured.Byreasonoftheprovisionscontainedinthe1988Act, amoreextensiveremedyhasbeenconferreduponthosewhohave obtained judgment against the user of a vehicle and after a certificateofinsuranceisdeliveredintermsofSection147(3)a thirdpartyhasobtainedajudgmentagainstanypersoninsuredby thepolicyinrespectofaliabilityrequiredtobecoveredbySection 145, thesamemustbesatisfiedbytheinsurer,notwithstanding thattheinsurermaybeentitledtoavoidortocancelthepolicyor mayinfacthavedoneso.Thesameobligationappliesinrespectof ajudgmentagainstapersonnotinsuredbythepolicyinrespectof
51
suchaliability,butwhowouldhavebeencoveredifthepolicyhad coveredtheliabilityofallpersons,exceptthatinrespectofliability fordeathorbodilyinjury. 84. Section3oftheActcastsanobligationonadrivertohold aneffectivedrivinglicenceforthetypeofvehiclewhichheintends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables Central Government to prescribeformsofdrivinglicencesforvariouscategoriesofvehicles mentionedinsubsection(2)ofsaidsection.Thevarioustypesof vehiclesdescribedforwhichadrivermayobtainalicenceforone ormoreofthemare:(a)Motorcyclewithoutgear,(b)motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transportvehicle,(f)roadroller,and(g)motorvehicleofother specifieddescription.ThedefinitionclauseinSection2oftheAct definesvariouscategoriesofvehicleswhicharecoveredinbroad typesmentionedinsubsection(2)ofSection10.Theyare'goods carriage', 'heavygoods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motorvehicle', 'invalidcarriage','lightmotorvehicle','maxicab','mediumgoods vehicle', 'medium passenger motorvehicle', 'motorcab', 'motorcycle', 'omnibus', 'private service vehicle', 'semitrailer', 'touristvehicle','tractor','trailer',and'transportvehicle'.Inclaims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regardtotheconditionsofdrivinglicencesariseforconsideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for 'motorcyclewithoutgear',forwhichhehasnolicence.Casesmay alsoarisewhereaholderofdrivinglicencefor'lightmotorvehicle'
is found to be driving a 'maxicab', 'motorcab' or 'omnibus' for which he has nolicence.Ineachcaseonevidenceledbeforethe Tribunal,adecisionhastobetakenwhetherthefactofthedriver possessinglicenceforonetypeofvehiclebutfounddrivinganother typeofvehicle,wasthemainorcontributorycauseofaccident.If onfacts,itisfoundthataccidentwascausedsolelybecauseofsome otherunforeseenorinterveningcauseslikemechanicalfailuresand similar other causeshavingnonexuswithdrivernot possessing requisitetypeoflicence,theinsurerwillnotbeallowedtoavoidits liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning drivinglicence. 8.4 Meaning thereby, even if driver of offending vehicle was not qualifiedtoplytheoffendingvehicleorwasnothavingtherequired badgetoplysuchvehiclethenalsoinsurerisliabletopayamountof compensation.Beforepassinganyorder,Tribunalhastodecidewhether thefactofthedriverpossessinglicenceforonetypeofvehiclebutfound drivinganothertypeofvehicle,wasthemainorcontributorycauseof accident.Ifonfacts,itisfoundthataccidentwascausedsolelybecause ofsomeotherunforeseenorinterveningcauseslikemechanicalfailures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence,theinsurerwillnot be allowedtoavoidits liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. 8.5 Reference is alsorequiredtobe made tothe recent decision of
Hon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofS.Iyyapanv/sUnitedIndiaInsurance Com.Ltd.,dated01.07.2013.Wherein,afterreferringseveralratiosof Hon'bleApexCourt,ithasbeenheldinParaNo.19that: In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no disputethatthemotorvehicleinquestion,bywhichaccidenttook place,wasMahindraMaxiCab.Merelybecausethedriverdidnotget anyendorsementinthedrivinglicencetodriveMahindraMaxiCab, whichisalightmotorvehicle,theHighCourthascommittedgrave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensationbecausethedriverwasnotholdingthelicencetodrive thecommercialvehicle.Theimpugnedjudgmentis,therefore,liable tobesetaside. 8.6 Eveninthecaseof NewIndiaAssuranceCo.Ltd.v.Roshanben RahemanshaFakir,reportedinAIR2008SC2266,ithasbeenheldthat whendriverofoffendingvehiclewasholderoflicenceofthreewheeler i.e.autorickshawdeliveryvanandhislicencewasnotmeantfordriving 'transport vehicle' but for goods carrying public carrier, in such case Insurerisnotliablebutdirectedtheinsurertofirstpayentireamountof compensation with a further direction to recover the same from the insured(thesedirectionswereissuedunderArticle142ofConstitution ofIndia).
54
9. In which circumstances, Insurer is liable to pay compensation when injuredclaimantordeceasedwastravellinginthegoodsvehicle: 9.1 It is the duty of the insurer to prove that injured claimant or deceased was travellinginthegoodsvehicleand,therefore,itisnot liable to pay amount ofcompensation,unless,same hasbeen prove, insurerisliabletopayamountofcompensation. 9.2 Todecidewhether,injuredclaimantordeceasedwastravellingin the goodsvehicle or not,Panchnamaofsceneofaccidentplaysvery vitalrole.If,afterreadingPanchnama,itappearsthatthereweregoods loadedinthevehicleorwerefoundlyingatthesightofaccidentthenit canbepresumedthatvehiclewasusedforcarryinggoods.However, there are some points, which are required to be considered before fasteningliabilityoninsurer,whichare: 9.2.1Whetherinjuredclaimantordeceasedwastravellinginthe cabinofthegoodsvehicleornot.If,injuredclaimantordeceased wastravellinginthecabinofthegoods,insurerisliableotherwise not.ReferencebemadetoratiolaiddownbyHon'bleApexCourt inthecaseofNationalInsuranceCo.Ltd.v/sCholletiBharatamma, reportedinAIR2008SC484.
55
9.2.2Whethertheinsurerisliableinacasewheretheinjuredclaimantor deceasedwastravellinginthegoodsvehicleasthelaboureroftheowneror thehirer: 9.2.2.1. If it is proved that injured claimant or deceased was
travellinginthegoodsvehicleasthelaboureroftheownerofthe goods then insurer is liable to pay amount of compensation, provided additional premium of labourer/collie is paid by the ownerbut insurerisnotliableinthesuchcaseswhereinjured claimantordeceasedwastravellinginthegoodsvehicleasthe labourerofthehirer.Referencebemadetotheratiolaiddownin thecaseofSanjeevKumarSamratv/sNationalInsuranceCo.Ltd, reportedinAIR2013SCW301,whereinitisheldthat: theActpolicydoesnotcoverallkindsofemployees.Thus,onacontextualreading oftheprovision,schematicanalysisoftheActandtheWorkmen'sCompensation Act,1923itisquitelimpidthatthestatutorypolicyonlycoverstheemployeesofthe insured,eitheremployedorengagedbyhiminagoodscarriage.Itdoesnotcover any other kind of employee and therefore, someone who travels not being an authorizedagentinplaceoftheownerofgoods,andclaimstobeanemployeeofthe ownerofgoods,cannotbecoveredbythestatutorypolicy. 9.3 Whether insurer is liable in the case where injured claimant or deceasedwastravellinginthegoodsvehicleastheownerorrepresentative ofthegoods: 9.3.1. If it is proved that the injured claimant or deceased was travellingin the goodsvehicle astheownerorrepresentative ofthe
goods,insurerisliabletopayamountofcompensationotherwisenot. ReferencebemadetoratiolaidowninthecaseofNewIndiaInsurance Companyv/sDarshanaDevi,reportedinAIR2008(Supp)SC1639. 9.4WhetherinjuredclaimantordeceasedwastravellinginTractor/trolley isentitledtogetamountofcompensation: Normally,Tractortrailer/trolleyisusedforagriculturalpurpose
9.4.1
andifitfoundthatsamewasusedforagriculturalpurposeandsameis coveredbythe'FarmerComprehensivePolicy' orthe'FarmerPackage Policy',insuchsituation,insurerisliabletopaycompensation.Ifthe abovereferredtwoconditionsarenotfulfilled,insurercannotbeheld responsibletopayamountofcompensation.

9.4.2
It is also to be notedthat in the Annexure of Indian Motor
Tariff,listofMiscellaneousandSpecialtypesofvehiclesisgiven.Asper the said list tractors can be used for Agricultural and if Trolley is attachedtosuchTractor,samemaybeusedforcarryinggoods.Asper the said list there is one another kind of Tractor, which is 'Traction EngineTractor'.Ifisfoundthattractorisnotusedforthepurposeof agriculturalworkandifitusedforcarryinggoods,suchtractortrolley mustbeinsuredforsuchpurposeandifisnotinsuredassuch,insureris notliabletopayanyamountofcompensation.
9.5
Ittobenotedthatwheninsurancepolicycontains 'Avoidance
Clause',theninsuchsituation,insurerisliabletopaycompensation
undertheprincipleof'PayandRecover'.Referencemaybemadetothe ratiolaiddowninthecaseof NewIndiaAssuranceCo.Ltd.v.Vimal, Devi, reportedin 2010ACJ2878andratiolaiddownbytheHon'ble Full Bench of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shantaben Vankarv/sYakubbhaiPatel,reportedin2012ACJ2715. 9.6.However,itistobenotedthattheissuewithrespecttopassingan orderof'PayandRecover'ispendingforconsiderationbeforetheFull BenchofHon'bleApexCourt.Referencebemadetojudgmentdelivered inthecaseofNationalInsurancecom.Ltd.v/sParvathneni,reprtedin 2009(3)GLH377(SC).
58
10. Liability of insurer to pay compensation in the cases where injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the private car as occupants or travellingontwowheeleraspillionrider: 10.1.Intherecentdecision,Hon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofNational InsuranceCompanyLtd.v.Balakrishnan,reportedinAIR2013SC473 hasheldinparaNo.21that: comprehensive/package policy" would cover the liability of the insurerforpaymentofcompensationfortheoccupantinacar.There isnocavilthatan"ActPolicy"standsonadifferentfootingfroma "Comprehensive/Package Policy". As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a "Comprehensive/PackagePolicy"coverstheliability,therecannotbe anydisputeinthatregard.Wemayhastentoclarifythattheearlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the "Act Policy" which admittedlycannotcoverathirdpartyriskofanoccupantinacar. But, if thepolicy isa"Comprehensive/PackagePolicy",theliability wouldbecovered. 10.1.1.InviewoftheobservationsmadebyHon'bleApexCourtin the case of Balakrishnan (supra), occupant of private car or the pillion rider of two wheeler is entitled to recover amount of compensationfrominsurer,providedtheoffendingvehicleiscovered with the 'Comprehensive/ Package Policy'. Reference may also be madetoratiolaiddowninthecaseofOrientalInsuranceCompany Ltd.v.SurendraNathLoomba,reportedinAIR2013SC483.
11. How to decide a claim petition preferredunder section 163A of the Act:
11.1. AspertheratiolaiddowninthecaseofDeepalGirishbhaiSoniand
Ors.v.UnitedIndiaInsuranceCo.Ltd.,Baroda(2004)5SCC385 = AIR 2004 SC 2107, Hon'ble Full Bench of Apex Court has held that claim petition preferred u/s 163A is under 'No Fault Liability'. Whereas, in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sinitha, reported in AIR 2012 SC 797, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that claimpetitionpreferredu/s163Aisunder'FaultLiability'. 11.2. ItdoesnotbecomeclearfromthefactsoftheofDeepalGirishbhai Soni's(supra)caseastowhether,morethanonevehicleswereinvolved inthesaidaccidentornotbutfromthereadingoftheSinitha's(supra) case, it becomes clear that there was only one vehicle involved and questionwhichwasrequiredtobedecidedbyHon'bleApexCourtasto whether, insurer has succeeded in proving that claimant himself was negligentincausingtheaccidentornot. 11.3. Fromthereadingofboththeabovereferredratios,itappearsthat thereareconflictingviewsand,therefore,eachclaimpetitionmaybe decidedonthebasisofit'sfacts.Thatistosay,ifonlyonevehicleis involved,pointofnegligencemustbedecided. 11.4. Itistobenotedthatinaclaimpetition,preferredu/s163Aofthe Act,incomeoftheinjuredclaimantorthedeceasedshouldnotbemore thatRs.40,000/perannum.If,theincomeoftheinjuredclaimantor
the deceased is more that Rs.40,000/ per annum, in such cases, claimant/smaybegivenanoptiontoconvertthesameunderSection 166 of the Act. If claim petition is not converted, even after the order/direction,samebedismissed.Inthisregardsreferencemanybe madetoratiolaiddowninthecaseofDeepalGirishbhaiSoni(supra). 11.5. ItalsorequiredtobenotedthatintheFatalinjurycases,multiplier cannot be applied as same is applied only in the cases where claim petition is preferred by the injured. Reference be made to ratio laid down in the case of National Company Ltd. Versus Gurumallamma, reported in AIR 2009 SCW 7434, para No.8. Similar kind of observationsaremadebyHon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofSarlaVerma (supra),atParaNo.17(pageNo.3112inAIR),whichreadsunder: ...Therefore,wheretheapplicationisundersection163AoftheAct, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the structured formula basis, even where compensation is not specified with referencetotheannualincomeofthedeceased,orismorethanRs. 40,000/byapplyingtheformula:(2/3xA1xM),thatistwo thirdsoftheannualincomemultipliedbythemultiplierapplicable totheageofthedeceasedwouldbethecompensation. 11.6. Fromtheabovereferredratios,laiddownbyHon'bleApexCourt,it becomesamplyclearthatTribunalisnotrequiredtomakecalculationof compensationonthebasisof applicationofmultiplier.ButTribunalis only required to grantcompensationasperScheduleIIofthe Motor
VehicleAct,takingintoconsideringtheageandincomeofthedeceased andfigureshownagainsttheageandincomeofthedeceased.Foran example,if,monthlyincomeofthedeceasedwhowasagedabout48 years at the time of accident, is assessed as Rs.2,500/ per month (Rs.30,000/perannum),howthecompensationshouldbecalculated. Since Rs.30,000/ per annum is not shown anywhere in column of ANNUAL INCOME of the Second Schedule of the Act, now, the question,ishowtheamountofcompensationtobecalculated.Insuch cases,averageoffiguresintheincomegroupofRs.24,000/perannum and Rs.36,000/ per annum i.e Rs.2,86,000/ and Rs.4,32,000, respectively are required to be taken into consideration. Average of Rs.2,86,000/andRs.4,32,000,comestoRs.3,59,000.Outofthesaid amountof3,59,000,1/3isrequiredtobedeductedinconsiderationof expenses incurred by deceased towards maintaining himself and, therefore, net amount of future income loss comes to approximately Rs.2,40,000/. [Reference: National Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s P .C. Chacko,reportedin2012ACJ1065(DevisionBenchofHon'bleKerala HighCourt,ErnakulanBench)]
11.7. Itistoberememberedthatineveryclaimpetitionpreferredu/s163
AoftheAct,whetherthedeceasedismarriedornot,unlikeasclaim petitionpreferredu/s166oftheAct,onethird(1/3 rd)amountfromthe actualincomeofthedeceasedshouldbedeductedtowardspersonaland livingexpendituresofthedeceased.
62
11.8. Overandabovethefutureincomeloss,claimant/sis/areentitledto suchamount,specifiedundertheSecondScheduleoftheAct.However, inthecaseofSapanv/sUnitedIndiaInsuranceCom.Ltd.,reportedin AIR2008SC2281,heldthatwhenclaimpetitionpreferredu/s163A andclaimantwouldremaincrippledthroughoutlifeandwouldhaveno enjoymentforlife,TribunalcanawardfurthersumofRs.75,000/for futuremedicaltreatment.
63
12.Whatifthechequegivenforpaymentofpremiumofinsurancepolicyis dishonoured: 12.1. Reference may be made to the ratios laid down in the cases of Deddappav/sNationalInsuranceCom.Ltd.,reportedin(2008)2SCC 595 = AIR 2008 SC 767 = 2007 AIR SCW 7948 and United India InsuranceCom.Ltdv/sLaxmamma,reportedin2012ACJ1307(SC).In both these judgments, it has been held that when cheque given for payment of premium of policy, is dishonoured and on that count InsuranceCompanycancelsthepolicybyintimatingtheinsuredofsuch dishonourofchequebeforethedateofaccident,theninsuchsituation Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay amount of compensation but if insurer fails to intimate the insured about such dishonourandcancellationofpolicybeforethedateofaccident,thenin suchsituationinsurerisheldliabletopayamountofcompensationand InsuranceCompanymayprosecuteitsremedytorecovertheamount paidtotheclaimantsfromtheinsurer.
64
13.WhatisthemeaningofArisingoutofuseofMotorVehicle:
13.1. Legislaturehasadvisedlyusedtheexpression 'arisingoutoftheuse
ofmotorvehicle' andnot 'connectedwiththeuseofmotorvehicle' underSections140,163Aand166oftheActand,therefore,theremust bemore directandpronouncedlinkageornexusbetweentheuseof motor vehicle and the accident which has resulted. A mere casual connectionisnotsufficient. 13.2. To decide the such issue one may advantageously refer to the judgmentdeliveredbyHon'bleApexCourt,reportedasShivajiDayanu PatilandAnr.v.VatschalaUttamMore,(1991)3SCC530=AIR1991 Sc1769.Inthesaidcase,Hon'bleApexCourtconsideredatlength,the questionswhetherthefireandexplosionofthepetroltankerinwhich deceasedlosthislifecouldbesaidtohaveresultedfromanaccident arisingoutoftheuseofamotorvehicle,namelythepetroltanker.The courtansweredthequestionintheaffirmative,thatistosay,infavour oftheclaimantandagainsttheinsurancecompany. 13.3. ItistruethatthecaseShivajiDayanuPatil(supra)arosefromthe claimfornofaultcompensationundersection92Aofthe1939Act(u/s 163AoftheNewAct).Allthematerialfactswereconsideredatlength by Hon'ble Apex Court in above referred case and, therefore, said principleisalsoapplicableintheclaimpetitionpreferredu/s166ofthe Act.
65
13.4. RatiolaiddownbyHon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofShivajiDayanu Patil (supra) is also relied upon by Hon'ble Apex Court in several decisions,namely,SamirChanda,v/sManagingDirector,AssamState TransportCorporation,reportedinAIR1999SC136andSmt.RitaDevi v/sNewIndiaAssuranceCo.Ltd.,reportedinAIR2000SC1930and NewIndiaAssuranceCo.Ltd.v.YaduSambhajiMore,reportedinAIR 2011SC666.
66
14.WhetherFinanceCompany,whichhasadvancedloanforthepurposeof purchaseofvehicleunderthe'HirePurchaseAgreement'canbesaidtobe theowneroftheVehicle: 14.1. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godavari Finance v/s Degala Satyanarayananamma,reportedin2008ACJ1612hasheldinpara13 asunder: 13.IncaseofamotorvehiclewhichissubjectedtoaHirePurchase Agreement,thefinanciercannotordinarilybetreatedtobetheowner. Thepersonwhoisinpossessionofthevehicle,andnotthefinancier being the owner would be liable to pay damages for the motor accident. 14.2. Reference may also be made ratio laid down in the case of Anup Sarmahv/sBholaNathSharma,reportedinIV(2012)CPJ3(SC),para No.8&9.
67
15. When an accident, involving two vehicles and driver of one of the unknownvehiclespedawayaftertheaccident,whetherinsuchsituation, claimpetitionismaintainableagainsttheothertortfeasor,inviewofthe provisionscontainedunderSections161&163oftheAct: 15.1. Hon'ble Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No.3354of2000withCivilApplicationNo.746of2005dated13.7.2005 hasheldinsuchsituationclaimpetitionisnotmaintainable.ButHon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case ofBhanuben P .Joshi V/s.KantilalB. Parmar,reportedin1994ACJ714(DB)hasheldotherwise.Factsofthe BhanubenP .Joshi(supra)asunder: 15.1.1. Inthesaidcaseaccidentoccurredbecauseoneunknowntruck dashed the motor cycle from behind and after the accident, truck driver sped away with the truck and remained unidentified and pillion rider sustained fatal injuries. Claimants of the said claim petition averred that motor cycle was being driven by its rider at excessivespeedandinrashandnegligentmanner.Tribunaldismissed theclaimpetitionbyholdingthattherewasnorashnessonthepart ofthemotorcyclist.AfternotingthesaidfactsHon'bleGujaratHigh Courthasobservedthatmotorcyclewasbeingdriveninrashand negligent manner and in flagrant violation of traffic rules and regulationsandfinallyreversedthefindingofTribunal. 15.1.2. ItisalsoheldinparaNo.9oftheabovereferredratio,namely BhanubenP .Joshi(supra)thatvictimsofroadaccidentareentitledto
claimcompensationfromalloranyofthejointtortfeasors,itwould not be necessary to apportion the extent of contribution of each driverofhappeningofunfortunateaccident. 15.2. Fromtheabovereferredratiositbecomesclearthatevenifdriver andowneroftheunknownvehicleisnotjoinedaspartiesopponents, claimpetitionismaintainableagainstanyoneofthetortfeasors.
69
16. Whether all the joint tortfeasors are required to be joined as party opponentsintheclaimpetition: 16.1. Hon'ble Gujarat Court in the case of O.I.Com.Ltd. v/s Zubedaben Pathan, in F.A. No.651 of 2012 and judgment dated 18.02.2010, delivered by Hon'ble Kerala Court in the case of U.I.Com.Ltd. v/s Mariamma George, in M.A.C.A. No.744 of 2005 have held that the claimant/s is/are not entitled to recover amount of compensation, jointlyandseverallyfromtheinsurancecompany/companies,ifallthe tortfeasorsarenotjoined. 16.2. ButHon'bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofAmarsingJugabhaiv/s VijyabenDhuliya,reportedin1996(3)GLR493hasheldinparaNo.23 that: Whereapersonisinjuredinamotoraccidentwhichoccursnoton accountofhisnegligence,butbecausethedriversofcollidedvehicles were negligent, the claimants are entitled to damage jointly and severallyfromthenegligentrespondents.Everywrongdoerisliable for the whole damage and it does not matter whether they acted betweenthemselvesasequals.Adecreepassedagainsttwoormore tortfeasors can be executed against any one ofthe defendantsand suchdefendantcanbecompelledtopaytheentireamountofdamages decreed.Itisfurtherclearthatthedefendantwhoiscompelledtopay the entire amount of damages decreed has a right to contribution from the other wrongdoer. The liability in the case of composite negligence,unlessmustnormallyshouldnotbeapportionedbecause
70
theclaimant isabletorecover thewholeamount ofcompensation from owner or driver of either vehicles. In case of composite negligence,liabilityforcompensationinnormalcircumstances,should not be apportioned, as both wrongdoers are jointly and severally liableforthewholeloss.Ruleofapportionmentofliabilityappliesin acaseof contributorynegligence,i.e.,wheretheinjuredhimselfis alsoguiltyofnegligence. 16.3. Hon'bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofKusumbenVipinchandra Shahv.ArvindbhaiNarmadashankarRaval,reportedinAIR2007Guj. 121.Whereinitisheldthat: AsheldinGujaratStateRoadTransportCorporationv.Gurunath Shahu (supra), the finding given by the Tribunal in such a case regarding apportionment of liability would be tentative for the purpose of subsequent proceeding which might be filed by the defendanttortfeasoragainsttheotherjointtortfeasorwhowasnota partytothefirstproceeding.Butsuchtentativenessforthepurposeof contribution between two joint tortfeasors did not at all affect the right of the plaintiffclaimant to recover full damages from the defendanttortfeasoragainstwhomthefirstproceedingwasfiled. 16.4. Fromtheabovereferredratiositbecomesclearthatclaimant/sis/are notrequiredtojoinallthetortfeasorsaspartyopponent/s.
71
17.Whetherthepointofnegligenceandliabilityofinsurer,decidedbythe coordinate Tribunal is binding on the other coordinate Tribunal, if the claimpetitionhasarisenfromthesameaccident: 17.1. Hon'blethePrivyCouncilinitsdecisionrenderedinthecaseofSyed MohamamdSaadatAliKhanv.MirzaWiquarAliBeg,reportedinAIR (30)1943PC115hasobservedasunder: "Inorderthatadecisionshouldoperateasresjudicatabetweenco defendants,threeconditionsmustexist:(1)Theremustbeaconflictof interestbetweenthosecodefendants,(2)itmustbenecessarytodecide theconflictinordertogivetheplaintiffthereliefheclaims,and(3)the questionbetweenthecodefendantsmusthavebeenfinallydecided."
17.2. Thus, the Privy Council has laid down that if the aforesaid three
conditions stand satisfied, res judicata can operate between the co defendantsalso.SaidprincipleisalsofollowedbyHon'bleGujaratHigh Court in the case of United India Insurance Com. ltd. v/s. Laljibhai Hamirbhai,reportedin2007(1)GLR633.
72
18.Whetheraclaimpetitionpreferredbytheaclaimant (alsotheownerof the offending vehicle, without involving another vehicle) alleging therein that accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driverofthevehicleownedbyhim,ismaintainable: 18.1. Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Dhanraj v/s N.I.A.Com. Ltd., reported in 2005 ACJNo.1,OrientalInsurance Com.Ltd.v/sJhuma Saha,reportedin2007ACJ818andN.I.A.Com.Ltd.v/sMeeraBai, reportedin2007ACJ821hasinterpretedSection147andithasbeen heldthatSection147doesnotrequireanInsuranceCompanytoassume riskfordeathorbodilyinjurytotheownerofthevehicle. 18.2. Todecidesuchpoint,factofeachcaseisrequiredtobetakeninto consideration.FactsofDhanraj(supra)are:Appellant(ownerofjeep) alongwithcertainotherpersonsweretravellinginhisownJeepand saidJeepmetwithanaccident.Intheaccident,theAppellantaswellas otherpassengersreceivedinjuries.Intheclaimspetitions,Tribunalheld the Driver of the Jeep responsible for the accident. In all the Claim Petitions filed by the other passengers, Tribunal directed that the Appellant(astheowner)aswellastheDriverandInsuranceCompany were liable to pay compensation. In the Claim Petition filed by the appellantownerofthejeep,theTribunaldirectedtheDriverandthe Insurance Company to pay compensation to the appellant. Insurance Company filed an Appeal before the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court.ThatAppealwasallowedandheldthatastheappellantwasthe ownerofthejeepand,therefore,theInsuranceCompanyisnotliableto
payhimanycompensation.AgainstthesaidorderofHon'bleMadhya PradeshHighCourt, appealwaspreferredbyappellantowner.Inthe saidappeal,afterincorporating Section147oftheAct,Hon'bleApex Courthasheldthatcomprehensive policycoverstheliabilityincurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carriedinthevehicleordamagetoanypropertyofathirdpartycaused byorarisingoutoftheuseofthevehicle.Section147doesnotrequire anInsuranceCompanytoassumeriskfordeathorbodilyinjurytothe ownerofthevehicle. 18.3. Relying upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi and Ors. 1998ACJ121,itisfurtherheldinparaNo.9thattheliabilityofan InsuranceCompanyisonlyforthepurposeofindemnifyingtheinsured againstliabilitiesincurredtowardsthirdpersonorinrespectofdamages toproperty. 18.4. Thus,wheretheinsuredi.e.anownerofthevehiclehasnoliabilityto athirdpartytheInsuranceCompanyhasnoliabilityalso. 18.5. From the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhanraj (supra), it becomes amply clear that comprehensive policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an ownerof the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle.Section147doesnotrequireanInsuranceCompanytoassume riskfordeathorbodilyinjurytotheownerofthevehicle.
74
19.WhatisthemeaningofPublicPlace,asdefinedu/s2(34)oftheAct: 19.1. Definitionof'PublicPlace',readsasunder: "2(34) "Public place" means, a road, street, way or other place,whetherathoroughfareornot,towhichthepublic havearightofaccess,andincludesanyplaceorstandat which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage." 19.2. Thedefinitionof'publicplace'undertheM.V .Actis,therefore,wide enoughtoincludeanyplacewhichmembersofpublicuseandtowhich they have a right of access. The right of access may be permissive, limited,restrictedorregulatedbyoralorwrittenpermission,bytickets, passes or badges or on payment of fee. The use may be restricted generallyortoparticularpurposeorpurposes.Whatisnecessaryisthat theplacemustbeaccessibletothemembersofpublicandbeavailable fortheiruse,enjoyment,avocationorotherpurpose. 19.3. Vary question came up for consideration before the Full Bench of BombayHighCourtinPandurangChimajiAgaleandanotherv.New India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune and others, AIR 1988 Bom 248, whereintheHon'bleCourtaftertakingnoteofthedivergentviewsof different High Courts with regard to the meaning and import of the term 'public place', as defined under Section 2(24) of the 1939 Act (correspondingtoSection2(34)oftheM.V .Act),proceededtohold that for the purpose of Chapter VIII of the said Act, the expression 'publicplace'willcoverallplacesincludingthoseofprivateownership
wheremembersofthepublichaveanaccesswhetherfreeorcontrolled inanymannerwhatsoever. 19.4. RelyingontheFullBenchdecisionoftheBombayHighCourt(cited supra),aFullBenchofMadrasHighCourtinthecaseofUnitedIndia InsuranceCo.Ltd.v.ParvathiDeviandothers,1999ACJ1520(Madras) hasheldasfollows: "16.Thedefinitionof'publicplace'isverywide.Aperusalofthesame revealsthatthepublicatlargehasarighttoaccessthoughthatright is regulated or restricted. It is also seen that this Act is beneficial legislation,soalsothelawofinterpretationhastobeconstruedinthe benefitofpublic.Intheoveralllegalpositionandthefactthatifthe languageissimpleandunambiguous,ithastobeconstruedinthe benefitofthepublic,weareoftheviewthattheword'publicplace' wherever used as a right or controlled in any manner whatsoever, wouldattractsection2(24)oftheAct.Inviewofthis,asstated,the private place used with permission or without permission would amounttobea'publicplace'. 19.5. DivisionBenchdecisionoftheKeralaHighCourtinthecaseofRajan v. John, 2009 (2) TAC260(Ker) : (AIR 2009 Ker136), the Hon'ble Courtwhileconsideringthedefinitionof'publicplace'forthepurposeof Section2(34)oftheAct,proceededtoholdthattheterm'publicplace' cannotbegivenarestrictedmeaninginasmuchas,itisnottobetaken asaplacewherepublichaveuncontrolledaccessatalltimes.'Public place'forthepurposeoftheActhastobeunderstoodwithreferenceto
76
theplacestowhichavehiclehasaccess.Accordingly,theHon'bleCourt proceeded to hold that theprivate premisesofahousewhere goods vehicleisallowedentry,isa'publicplace'forthepurposeofSection 2(34) of the Act and therefore the insurer is liable to pay the compensatioon. 19.6. Fromtheabovereferredratios,itbecomesclearthatinanyprivate premises,wheregoodsvehicleisallowedentry,isa'publicplace'forthe purposeofSection2(34)oftheAct.
77
20. What if, the vehicle which met with an accident was sold of by its registeredowner beforethedate of accidentandnameofthetransferee owner(purchaser)isnotenteredintotheR.C.Book:
20.1. Hon'bleMadhyaPradeshHighCourtandHon'bleKeralaHighCourt,
inthecasesreportedin2011ACJ577&1997ACJ260,respectively,it has been held that when registeredowner denies hisliability topay amountofcompensationonthegroundthathehadsoldthevehiclein questionandreceivedtheconsiderationthereofandhandedoverthe possession of the vehicle along with R.C. Book and relevant transfer Formsforgettingthevehicletransferredinthenameoftransfereemuch prior to the accident, then in that circumstances transferee owner cannotbeallowedtoevadehisliabilitytopayamountofcompensation onthegroundthatheisnotregisteredowner. 20.2. But Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpa alias Leela v/s. Shakuntala,reportedin2011ACJ705(SC)=AIR2011SC682inthe abovereferredjudgmentHon'belApexCourt,inparagraphsNos.12to 16hasheldasunder: 12.Thequestionoftheliabilityoftherecordedownerofavehicle afteritssaletoanotherpersonwasconsideredbythisCourtinDr.T.V. Josev.ChackoP .M.,(2001)8SCC748:(AIR2001SC3939).In paragraphs9and10ofthedecision,theCourtobservedandheldas follows: "9.Mr.IyerappearingfortheAppellantsubmittedthattheHighCourt waswronginignoringtheoralevidenceonrecord.Hesubmittedthat theoralevidenceclearlyshowedthattheAppellantwasnottheowner
ofthecaronthedateoftheaccident.Mr.Iyersubmittedthatmerely becausethenamehadnotbeenchangedintherecordsofR.T.O.did notmeanthattheownershipofthevehiclehadnotbeentransferred. Mr.IyersubmittedthattherealownerofthecarwasMr.RoyThomas. Mr. Iyer submitted that Mr. Roy Thomas had been made party RespondentNo.9totheseAppeals.HepointedoutthatanAdvocate had filed appearance on behalf of Mr. Roy Thomas but had then applied for and was permitted to withdraw the appearance. He pointedoutthatMr.RoyThomashadbeendulyservedandapublic noticehadalsobeenissued.HepointedoutthatMr.RoyThomashad chosennottoappearintheseAppeals.Hesubmittedthattheliability, ifany,wasofMr.RoyThomas. 10. We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not right in holdingthattheAppellantcontinuedtobetheownerasthenamehad notbeenchangedintherecordsofR.T.O.Therecanbetransferoftitle bypaymentofconsiderationanddeliveryofthecar.Theevidenceon recordshowsthatownershipofthecarhadbeentransferred.However theAppellantstillcontinuedtoremainliabletothirdpartiesashis namecontinuedintherecordsofR.T.O.as.theowner.TheAppellant couldnotescapethatliabilitybymerelyjoiningMr.RoyThomasin theseAppeals.Mr.RoyThomaswasnotapartyeitherbeforeMACTor theHighCourt.IntheseAppealswecannotandwillnotgointothe question of inter se liability between the Appellant and Mr. Roy Thomas.ItwillbefortheAppellanttoadoptappropriateproceedings againstMr.RoyThomasif,inlaw,heisentitledtodoso."
(Emphasisadded) 13.Again,inP .P .Mohammedv.K.RajappanandOrs.,(2008)17SCC 624,thisCourtexaminedthesameissueundersomewhatsimilarset offactsasinthepresentcase.Inparagraph4ofthedecision,this Courtobservedandheldasfollows: "4.Theseappealsarefiledbytheappellants.TheInsuranceCompany haschosennottofileanyappeal.ThequestionbeforethisCourtis whetherbyreasonofthefactthatthevehiclehasbeentransferredto Respondent 4 and thereafter to Respondent 5, the appellant got absolved from liability to the third person who was injured. This questionhasbeenansweredbythisCourtinT.V.Jose(Dr.)v.Chacko P .M. (reported in 2001(8) SCC 748) wherein it is heldthat even thoughinlawtherewouldbeatransferofownershipofthevehicle, that,byitself,wouldnotabsolvetheparty,inwhosenamethevehicle stands in RTO records, from liability to a third person. We are in agreementwiththeviewexpressedtherein.Merelybecausethevehicle wastransferreddoesnotmeanthattheappellantstandsabsolvedof hisliabilitytoathirdperson.SolongashisnamecontinuesinRTO records,heremainsliabletoathirdperson." (Emphasisadded) 14.ThedecisioninDr.T.V.JosewasrenderedundertheMotorVehicles Act,1939.Buthavingregardtotheprovisionsofsection2(30)and section50oftheAct,asnotedabove,theratioofthedecisionshall applywithequalforcetothefactsofthecasearisingunderthe1988 Act.Onthebasisofthesedecisions,theinescapableconclusionisthat
Jitender Gupta, whose name continued in the records of the registeringauthorityastheownerofthetruckwasequallyliablefor payment of the compensation amount. Further, since an insurance policy in respect of the truck was taken out in his name he was indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the insurer, Oriental InsuranceCompanyLtd. 15.LearnedcounselfortheInsuranceCompanysubmittedthateven thoughtheregisteredownerofthevehiclewasJitenderGupta,after thesaleofthetruckhehadnocontroloveritandthepossessionand controlofthetruckwereinthehandsofthetransferee,SaligRam.No liabilitycan,therefore,befastenedonJitenderGupta,thetransferor ofthetruck.Insupportofthissubmissionherelieduponadecisionof this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v.Deepa Devi and Ors.,(2008)1SCC414:(AIR2008SC735).Thefactsofthecasein Deepa Devi are entirely different. In that case the vehicle was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of the powers conferreduponhimundertheRepresentationofthePeopleAct,1951. Inthatcircumstance,thisCourtobservedthattheownerofthevehicle cannotrefusetoabidebytheorderofrequisitionofthevehiclebythe DeputyCommissioner.Whilethevehicleremainedunderrequisition, theownerdidnotexerciseanycontroloverit:thedrivermightstillbe theemployeeoftheownerofthevehiclebuthehadtodrivethevehicle accordingtothedirectionoftheofficeroftheState,inwhosecharge the vehicle was given. Save and except the legal ownership, the registeredownerofthevehiclehadlostallcontroloverthevehicle.The
decisioninDeepaDeviwasrenderedonthespecialfactsofthatcase andithasnoapplicationtothefactsofthecaseinhand. 16. In light of the discussion made above it is held that the compensation amount is equally realisable from respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and it is directed to make full paymentofthecompensationamountasdeterminedbytheClaims Tribunaltotheappellantswithintwomonthsfromthedateofthis judgment.
20.3. FromtheabovereferredratioofHon'bleApexCourt,itcanbeheld
that, ason the date ofaccident,transferorownerwasthe registered ownerofoffendingvehicle,hemustbedeemedtocontinueasownerof theoffendingvehicleforthepurposeoftheMotorVehiclesAct,even thoughundertheCivilLaw,heceasedtobeitsownerafteritssaleand TransferorOwnerandTransfereeOwner(both)areequallyliabletopay theamountofcompensationinfavouroftheclaimant.
82
21. Whetheraclaimpetitioncanbedismissedforwantofprosecutionor nonappearanceoftheclaimantand/orhisAdvocate: 21.1. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharatbhai Narsingbhai Chaudhryv/sMalekRafikMalekHimantbhaiMalek,reportedin2012 ACJ1262=AIR2011Gujarat150hasheldinParaNo.5.14and6.1 thatClaimsTribunalsarenotempoweredtodismissclaimapplication for default of claimantafterframingofissues.Itisfurtherheldthat Tribunalsarerequiredtodecideclaimpetitionsonmeritswithaviewto providesubstantialjusticetothevictimofaccident,keepinginmindthe object of benevolent legislation, instead of entering into niceties and technicalities. 21.2. However,FullBenchesofHon'bleKeralaHighCourtinthecaseof Jacob Thomas v. C. Pandian, reported in AIR 2006 Kerala 77 and Jammu&KashmirHighCourtinthecaseofMohammadYousufWani v/sAbdulRehmanGujri,reportedinAIR1982Kerala146havetakena view that when O. 9 of CPC is specifically made applicable to proceedingsbeforeclaimsTribunal,itcannotbesaidthatTribunalhas nopowertodismissapplicationfordefaultwhenthecaseispostedfor hearingifclaimantisabsentandrespondentsarepresent.But,S.168 didnotinsistthatinallcasesawardshouldbepassedbutonlydirected that Tribunal "may make an award", once it makes a judgement or award, mandates of Rules framed under the Act has to be complied with.
83
22. Whether a claim petition can be dismissed for non production of documents mentioned under Rule 211 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules,1989: 22.1. ThereisnojudgmentonthispointbutRule211,subrule5provides that:withallclaimpetition,preferredu/s166oftheAct,FIR,Injury Certificate orPostmortemReportanddetailsofownerandinsurance policy of offending vehicle, supplied either by police or regional transportauthorityshouldbefurnished. 22.1.1. Above referred provisions are mandatory provision and deviationtherefrom,wouldleadtodismissaloftheclaimpetition. However, it is to be notedthat alongwithclaimpetition,original documentsarenotrequiredtobefurnishedandonlyphotocopyof suchdocumentswilldo.Originaldocumentsmaybeproducedwhen thestageofevidencecomes.
84
23. Howtodecideaclaimpetition,whereinsurerhastakenadefenceof violationof'Permit': 23.1. In some claim petitions, insurer takes defence of violation and/or breachof'Permit'.Tounderstandlegalposition,someexampleswiththe caselawarerequiredtobetakenintoconsideration.Someexamples andfindingsoftheHon'bleHighCourtsareasunder: 1. Insurer seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that offending vehiclewasbeingpliedwithoutvalidpermit.Ithascomeonrecord thatinsurerhadinsuredthesaidvehiclewithouttherebeingvalid permit.Therefore,itisheldthatitisthedutyofInsurertoverifythe factthatpermitofvehiclewasvalidornotatthetimeofinsuringthe vehicle and, as insurer having insured the vehicle without valid permit,itcannotseekexemptionfromliability.Thishasbeenheldby Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of U.I.I.Com. v/s PrakashiDevi,reportedin2011ACJ1683. 2. InsurerseekstoavoiditsliabilityonthegroundthatownerofTaxi, whichhitthepedestrianshadviolatedtermsofpolicy,asTaxicould nothavebeenusedinapublicplaceafterexpiryofpermit.Ithas comeonrecordthatpolicywasvalid.Evenitwasnot thecaseof Insurerthatpassengerswerebeingcarriedforhireandrewardand policydidnotcoverthecaseofThirdParty.Itwastherefore,held thatvictimdidnotsufferinjurieswhiletravellingintheTaxiforhire orrewardandmereexpiryofpermitwouldnotabsolveInsurerto paycompensation,asnoprovisionoftheActisshownbyInsurerto
pointoutthatownerofTaxiwasunderlegalobligation,nottoply Taxiaftertheexpiryofpermit.ThishasbeenheldbyHon'bleKerala HighCourtinthecaseofSethunathv/sJohnVarghese,reportedin 2011ACJ2242. 3. Truck was loaded withcoal and carrying 12passengers, capsized. Truck was insured covering driver, cleaner and 6 coolies. Insurer contendedthattruckwasoverloadedasitwascarryingmorethat8 personsandfurthercontendedthatthereisbreachofpolicy.Itisheld thatInsurerhasfailedtoshowthatcarryingmorenumberofcoolies wouldbetreatedasbreachofpolicyand,ithasbeenfurtherheld thatifatallthereisanybreachofpolicy,itisnotsofundamentalas to put end to the contract totally. Finally Insurer was directed to satisfy the highest six awards of coolies. This has been held by Hon'ble BombayHighCourt inthecase ofSanjayv/sSukhiyabai, reportedin2012ACJ287. 4. Truckhitapersonstandingonroadsideandhesustainedgrievous injuries. Tribunal found that Truck was being plied without valid permitandowneroftheTruckhascommittedbreachoftheterms andconditionofpolicy.Afterholdingthis,Tribunaldirectedinsurer topaycompensationandthenrecoverfromtheowner.Thisawardof TribunalwaschallengedbeforetheHon'bleHighCourt.Hon'bleHigh Court, after relying upon the several Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, has held that award of Tribunal is just and proper and directionsofTribunalagainstinsurerto'payandrocover'isjustand
proper.ThishasbeenheldbyHon'bleAllahabadHighCourt(DB)in thecaseofN.I.Com.v/sRadheyShyam,reportedin2013ACJ788.
5. Minibusbeingpliedontherouteforwhichithadnopermit.Itis
alsofoundthatinthesaidbus13passengerstravellingagainstthe permit of 12 passengers. Held that there is violation of insurance policyandInsurerheldnotresponsiblebutorderof'payandrecover' is passed. This has been held by Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High CourtinthecaseofN.I.Com.v/sBalbirSingh,reportedin2013ACJ 1008. 23.2 From the above referred ratios, it becomes clear that it is for the insurer toverify before insuringthevehicle,astowhethervehicle is having valid permit ornotand,ifinsurerhavinginsuredthevehicle withoutvalidpermit,itcannotseekexemptionfromliabilityafterwards. 23.3 Ifitisfoundthatownerhasviolatedtermsofthepolicy,Tribunalcan passanorderexoneratinginsurerbutmayalsopassandorderof'pay andrecover'.
24.WhetheranawardpassedbytheTribunalcanbereviewed: 24.1 Many time claimant or opponent/s including insurer prefer/s an applicationforreviewofawardpassedbytheTribunalontheground thattheawardonaquestiononwhichthejudgmentoftheTribunalis based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of SuperiorCourt.Todealwithsuchkindofapplication,referencemaybe madetoExplanationofOrderXLVII(47)Rule1ofC.P .C.,1908,which readsasunder: ExplanationofOrderXLVII(47)Rule1ofC.P .C.: Thefactthatthedecisiononaquestionoflawonwhich thejudgmentoftheCourtisbasedhasbeenreversedor modifiedbythesubsequentdecisionofasuperiorCourtin anyothercase,shallnotbeagroundforthereviewof suchjudgment. 24.1.1. Fromtheabovereferredprovision,itbecomesclearthatwhen anapplicationforreviewofaward,passedbytheTribunalismoved onthegroundthattheawardonaquestiononwhichthejudgment of the Tribunal is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequentdecisionofSuperiorCourt,suchapplicationcannotbe entertained. 24.2 VariousHighCourtshavetakenaviewthatTribunaldoesnothave powerstomodify,alter,recallandreversit'searlieraward.Andifsuchan orderispassedinreviewpetition/application,itisnullity,nonestandvoid. Relyingupontheseveraldecisions,Hon'bleAllahabadHighCourtinthe
caseofN.I.Com.v.sRajbirSing,reportedin2012AAC3007thattribunal doesnothavepowerstoreview. 24.3 ReferencemayalsobemadetotheratiolaiddownbyHon'bleApex Court in the case of CTO v/s Makkad Plastic Agencies, reported in AIR 2011SCW2154,whereinitisobservedinparaNo.17asunder: Itisalsonowanestablishedpropositionoflawthatreviewisa creatureofthestatuteandsuchanorderofreviewcouldbepassed onlywhenanexpresspowerofreviewisprovidedinthestatute.In theabsenceofanystatutoryprovisionforreview,exerciseofpowerof reviewunderthegarbofclarification/modification/correctionisnot permissible....
24.4 BarereadingofabovereferredobservationsofHon'bleApexCourt
revealsthefactthatreviewisacreatureofthestatuteandsuchanorder of review could be passed only when an express power of review is providedinthestatute.As,thereisnoprovisionforreviewintheMotor VehiclesAct,1988,awardofthetribunalisnotreviewable. 24.5 Ontheabovereferredissue,referencemayalsobemadetoratioslaid downbyHon'bleClacuttaHighCourtinthecasereportedin2008ACJ 1248(DB)andN.I.Com.v/sChhabirani,reportedin2013ACJ1130 andratiolaiddownbyHon'bleGauhatiHighCourtinthecasereported in2008ACJ1248(DB)andN.I.Com.v/sNaniGopalDebnath,reported in2012ACJ2720.
25. Details of Proposal Forms for Private Cars/Motorised Two Wheelers PackagePolicyandLiabilityOnly/ActPolicy: 25.1DetailsabovemaybegatheredfromtheIndiaMotorTariff.PleasedSee Section5,PROPOSALFORMSatpageNo.88to101. 26. Standard wordings in respect of the Policy including Premium computationTable,CertificateofInsuranceandCoverNote: 26.1. DetailsabovemaybegatheredfromtheIndiaMotorTariff.PleasedSee Section6,atpageNo.102to176. 26.1.1.Details can also be downloaded from IDRA web site by tying/searching'IndiaMotorTariff'.
90
27.Therearecertainminorpoints/issueswhichcreatelittletroubleforLd. Judges to decide such tricky points/issues. Such points/issues, with citationsandreadyreckonerareasunder: 1Whether PWD isliabletopaycompensationwhenitisproved thatroadsarenotmaintainedproperlyheldyesPWDisliable onthegroundofprincipleofresipsaloquitorandcommonlaw. 1987ACJ783(SC) 2U/S140 Nofaultliability claimantneednottopleaand establishnegligenceheisrequiredtoprovethataccidentoccurred duetovehicularaccident 2011ACJ1603(Bombay) 3O11R14whetherclaimanthasrighttoseekdirectionfrom Tribunaltodirecttheothersidetoproducenecessarydocuments heldyes. 2011ACJ1946(AP) 4O41R33whethertheappellatecourthaspowerstomodifythe awardinabsenceofclaimantheldyes 2011ACJ1570(Guj) 5JurisdictionclaimantresidinginDistrictHinsurancecompany isalsohavinghavingofficeinDistrictCwhethertheTribunalat DistrictChasjurisdictiontoentertaintheclaimpetitionheldyes 2009ACJ564(SC) 6 U/S 166 & 163A income of deceased more than 40000 whetherTribunalcanreject anapplicationu/s163A?Heldno Tribunaloughttohaveconvertthesameoneu/s166 2004ACJ934(SC)
But P& H High Court hasheld(2011ACJ2128)inthatcase claimantpleadedthathewasearningRs7000p/m.indeposition, he deposed that he was earning Rs 3000 p/m.whether oral evidencewhichiscontrarytothepleadingscouldbeacceptedin absenceofanyotherdocumentaryevidenceheldno. 7 Death of owner of vehicle application by claimant to join widowofownerobjectedbyinsurancecompanyontheground of limitation whether objections are maintainable? Held no schemeofactdoesnotprovideforthesame 2011ACJ1717 8 Legal representative brother & married daughter evidence thatbrotherandhisfamilywasstayingwithdeceasedandbrother was dependent whether claim petition preferred by brother is maintainable?Heldyes 1987ACJ561(SC),2005ACJ1618(Guj),2012AAC2965(Mad) SCjudgmentsfollowed. 9 Widow remarriage by her whether claim petition by her maintainable?heldyeswhetherawidowisdivestedofherright to get compensation for the death of her husband on her remarryingduringpendencyofclaimpetition?Heldno 2008ACJ816(MP),2003ACJ542(MP),2004ACJ1467(MP)1992 ACJ1048(Raj),2011ACJ1625(Gau) 10 Limitation claim petition filed in 2005, whereas accident occurredintheyear1990whetherclaimpetitionistimebarred? heldno 2011ACJ1585(Jark)
11ReceiptofcompensationbyclaimantunderWCAct ,without therebeinganyapplicationbyclaimantundertheWCActwhether claimantisatlibertytofileanapplicationu/s166and/or163Aof MV Act/ held yes there is no bar for claimant to file an applicationu/s163AofMVActashehasnotmadeanyapplication underWCAct 2004ACJ934(SC),2003ACJ1434(P&H),2011ACJ1786(KAR) 12 Unknown assailant fired on driver while he was driving truck dashed with tree whether Tribunal was justified in concludingthataccidentwasavehicularaccidentandclaimantis entitledforcompensationu/s163AofMVActheldyes 2000ACJ801(SC),2011ACJ1658(MP),oneanotherjudgement ofGujHighcourt,JstRKAJ 13NegligenceApexcourtobservedthatHCwasnotcognizantof theprinciplethatinroadaccidentclaim, strictprinciplesofproof asrequiredincriminalcasearenotattracted onceeyewitness who has taken the claimant to the rod accident for treatment, immediatelyaftertheaccidenthasdeposedinfavourofclaimant, HC was not right in holding that accident is not proved and claimant is not entitled for any compensation SC allowed claim petitionofinjuredclaimant 2011ACJ1613(SC) 14 MV Act u/s 169 CPC whether Tribunal can exercise all powers of Civil Court without prejudice to the provisions of Section169ofMVAct?heldyes Tribunalcanfollowprocedure laiddowninCPC
2011ACJ2062(DEL) 15InterestincometaxTDSguideline 2007ACJ1897(GUJ) 16 Whether deduction towards EPF and GIS be made in calculatingincomeofthedeceased?heldno 2011ACJ1441(SC) 17Whethertheverificationreportofdrivinglicenceissuedby DistrictTransportOfficerisapublicdocument andcanberelied upon? held no unapproved verification report obtained by a privatepersoncannotbetreatedaspublicdocument 2011ACJ2138(DEL) 18Riskofcleanerengagedongoodsvehicleiscoveredbyproviso (i)(c)ofsection147(1)ofMVAct?Heldyesinsurancecompany isheldliabletopaycompensationtothecleaner 2005ACJ1323(SC),2007ACJ291(AP),2011ACJ1868(AP) 19 Act policy goods vehicle payment of additional premium whether risk of person engaged in loading/unloading is covered andICisliabletopayamountofcompensation?heldyes 2011ACJ1762(KER) 20PackagepolicypassengerriskliabilityofICcowandcalf animalcattleclaimanttravellingalongwithhiscattlewhetherIC isliable?heldyesu/s2(13)ofMVAct,goodsincludes,livestock 2011ACJ1464(KAR) 21Ganeshidolwhetherfallswithinthedefinitionofgoodsheld yes 2011ACJ2091(KAR)
22 Goods vehicle owner/labourers coming back in the same vehicle after unloading the goods to the particular destination accidentwhileinthe returnjourneywhetherICisliableheld yesasclaimantcantbetreatedasunauthorizedpassengers 2008ACJ1381(P&H),2011ACJ1550(HP) 23Passengerrisk ownerofgoodssharingseatwithdriverof autorickshawastherewasnoseparateseatavailable liability ofICwhetheristhereviolationofIP?heldyesowneraloneis liableorderofpayandrecover 2008ACJ1741(SC),2001ACJ1656(KER) 24PublicriskpolicyextentofliabilityofIC truckhittingscooter resultingindeathofpillionrider premiumwaspaidforpublic risk liability which was more than the prescribed for the act liabilitywhetherinthiscaseliabilityofICislimitedaspertheact? heldnopublicriskiswidertermandcoversentireriskfacedby theownerofvehiclepublicriskwouldcoverunlimitedamountof riskICisliable 2010ACJ2783(GUJ),2011ACJ2029(DEL) Butwhenextrapremiumispaid(packagepolicy)tocovertherisk ofpillionriderICisliabletopaytopillionrideralso 2011ACJ2100(KAR)AlsoseeNotesNos.29,51&52. 25LiabilityofIC minibushiredbyCorporationalongwithIP driverprovidedbytheownerwhowassupposedtodriveasperthe instruction of the conductor, who is employee of Corporation accidentwhetherICisliableheldyes2011ACJ2145(SC)
95
26ICtookdefensethatdriverwas notholdingthevalidlicence to drive IC did not examine any witness in this regard mere relianceontheexhibiteddrivinglicencemarkingofexhibitdoes notdispensewiththeproofofdocumentICheldliable AIR1971SC1865,2011ACJ1606((P&H) 27Driverwasholdinglicencetoply lightmotorvehicle drove pick up jeep which is transport vehicle whether IC is liable heldnow.e.f29.03.2001,nopersoncansaidtoholdaneffective drivinglicencetodrivetransportvehicleifheonlyholdsalicence entitling him to drive light motor vehicle when there is no endorsementondrivinglicencetodrivetransportvehicle,ICisnot liable 2008ACJ721(SC),2011ACJ2115(HP) 28DrivinglicenceliabilityofIClightmotorvehicledriverhad licence to ply auto rickshaw and was driving auto rickshaw deliveryvan,whichcausedaccidentTribunalheldthatdriverwas not holding valid licence whether sustainable held no further heldthatuseofvehicleforcarriageofgoodsdoesnottaketheauto rickshawoutsidethescopeanddefinitionoflightmotorvehicle, whichincludesatransportvehiclewhosegrossvehicleweightdoes notexceedpermissiblelimitof7500kgslastlyheldthatdriverwas holdingvalidlicencetodriveandICisliable 2011ACJ1592(ORI) 29 ActpolicypillionriderliabilityofICdeathofpillionrider IC disputed its liability on the ground that policy was statutory policyanditdidnotcovertheriskofpillionriderstatutorypolicy
coverstheriskofTPonlyanditdidnotcoverriskofpillionrider andgratuitouspassenger 2003ACJ1(SC),2006ACJ1441(SC),2009ACJ104(SC) 30ICdisputeditsliabilityonthegroundthatvehiclewasrunon LPGbutfailedtoadduceanyevidenceinthisregardHeldICis liable 2011ACJ2141(MAD) 31Policycommencementof premiumacceptedon3.5.97but covernotespecifiedtheeffectivedateofcommencementas5.5.97, as3.5.97washolidayICcontendedthatatthedateofaccident i.e.4.5.97,therewasnoteffectivepolicyinexistencewhetherICis liableheldyescontractofinsurancecomesintoeffectfromthe date of acceptance of premium more particularly when IC had receivedthepremiumpriortothedateofaccident 2011ACJ1728(BOM) 32TribunalexoneratedIConthegroundthatvehiclewasfoundto have twocontrolsystem andsamewasusedfor drivingschool whethersustainableheldnoIClednoevidencethatvehiclewas usedfordivingschool2011ACJ1632(BOM) 33Passengerstatedbeforetheinvestigatorthathewasfarepaying passenger said report not produced by IC along with reply claimant had no opportunity to rebut the said document Tribunalrelieduponthereport ofinvestigatorordersustainable heldnoasinsuranceComhasfailedtoestablishbreachofpolicy 2011ACJ1688(MP) 34 TravellingonrooftopICseekstoavoiditsliabilityonthat
countTribunalfounddeceasedtobepartlynegligentandallowed claimpetitionpartlywhethersustainableheldyesasICfailedto provethatdeceasedwasnotholdingthevalidtickets 2011ACJ2156(ALL) 35 Deceased a TP comprehensive policy liability of IC after newactliabilityofICisunlimitedtowardsTP 2011ACJ1860(RAJ) 36Two vehicular not driven by owner but the deceased no additionalpremium waspaidtocovertheriskofotherthanthe ownerofvehicleWhetherICisliableheldno2009ACJ998(SC) 37Pregnantwomansufferedinjurywhichledtodeathofchildin thewombRs2lacsawarded forthedeathofthechildinthe womb2005ACJ69(KAR),2067ACJ2067(MP),2011ACJ2400 (MAD),2011ACJ2432(SC) 38Quantum deceasedlastyearstudentofB.Tech relyingupon several Supreme Court decisions, income taken as Rs 12K per month10%deductedashewasinthefinalyearof B.TechRS 10,800/asmonthlyincomeconsidered 2011ACJ2403(AP),2011ACJ2082(P&H),2011ACJ1702(AP) 39CooliesufferedlossofhandamputationofhandSChelditto becaseof100%functionaldisablement 2011ACJ2436(SC) 40U/s163Atruckcapsizeddriverdiedwhetherentitledfor compensation held yes negligence is not required to be provedin163Aapplication
2011ACJ2442(MP) 41Medical reimbursement claimant got the same as he was medically insured whether IC is under statutory duty to pay medicalbill,thoughsameisreimbursementbytheclaimantheld no IC is not statutorily liable to pay medical bill as same is reimbursedundermedicalpolicy 2011ACJ2447(DEL) 42TractorAdashedwithTractorB4passengersofTractorB gotinjuredinsurancecompanysoughttoavoiditsliabilityonthe groundthattheyweregratuitouspassengerswhethersustainable heldnoICofTractorAisliableas4passengersofTractorB werethethirdpartyforTractorA 2011ACJ2463(MP) 43 Private vehicle breach of policy in FIR it is stated that vehicle was hired IC disputed its liability relying on the word hiredinFIReyewitnessesdeposedthatvehiclewas borrowed fromthefriendanddeniedthatitwashiredwhetherICisliable held yes as IC has neither confronted the witnesses with the statementmadebytheminFIRnorexaminedtheIOorRTOofficer 2011ACJ1482(SIK) 44 Whether IC is liable even if the driver had forged driving licence? held yesmere fact of licence being forged is not enoughtoabsolvetheICfromliability 2004ACJ1(SC),2011ACJ1611(HP) 45DrivinglicenceTribunalexoneratedIC,relyinguponthephoto copy of the it none of the parties have proved the contents of
photocopy of thelicence whetherTribunalerredinexonerating IC?heldyesasphotocopyoflicencewasnotdulyproved 2011 ACJ 1461 (MP), 2011 ACJ 1606 (P&H ) 1971 SC 1865 reliedupon 46U/s 163A, 166 & 158(6) of MV Act claim petition is it necessaryinallcaseforclaimanttofileclaimpetition?Heldno reportundersection 158(6) isenoughtotreatthesameasclaim petition Jaiprakash(SC),2011ACJ1916(BOM) 47 Tribunal dismissed claim petition on the ground that accident is not proved whether Tribunal erred? held yes Tribunalissupposedtoconductinquirynottrialinclaimpetition and summery procedure has to be evolved Tribunal could have invokedpowerenvisagedu/s165ofEvidenceAct 2011ACJ1475(DEL) 48ICseekstoavoiditsliabilityonthegroundthatdeceasedand otherinjuredstudentsweretravellinginprivetjeep ,whichthey hadtakenonhirecomprehensivepolicycoverstheriskofinmates ofprivatevehicleICcannotavoiditsliabilityonthegroundthat deceased was paid passenger held terms in policy which discriminate liability of insurance company for paid inmate and gratuitous passengers , held discriminatory and illegal2011 ACJ 1831(KAR) 49IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that offending vehiclewasbeingpliedwithoutpermit dutyofICtoverifythe factthatpermitofvehiclewasvalidornotatthetimeofinsuring
the vehicle IC having insured the vehicle without valid permit cannotseekexemptionfromliability 2011ACJ1683(UTK) 50OneofthetwopillionridersinjuredTribunalheldthatboth drivers were negligent in causing accident and their respective blamebeing75:25betweenbusdriverandmopedwhetherpillion rider is responsible for accident? held yes as he had violated trafficrules25%deductedfromawardedamount 2011ACJ1766(MAD)butsee2013ACJ1227((HP) 51Actpolicystatutorypolicypillionrider whetherICisliable heldnosuchpolicycoverstheTPriskonlyandnotofpillion riderICheldnotliable 2003ACJ1(SC),2006ACJ1441(SC),2009ACJ104(SC) 52Pillion rider of motor cycle package policy whether IC is liable held yes as insured had paid premium to cover the damagetothevehicleandpillionrider 2011ACJ2100(KAR) 53LiabilityofICincasewhere passengerswerecarriedinprivate vehicleforhireorreward suchpassengersnotbeingTPICheld not liable as neither the premium was paid for carriage of passengers nor there was any permit to ply vehicle for hire or reward 2011ACJ1753(HP) 54HousewifequantumRs3,000/p/mawarded 2011 ACJ 1670 (DEL), Lata Wadhwa, reported in 2001 ACJ 1735(SC)
IncaseofArunKumarAgrawal,reportedin2010(9)SCC218, ApexCourthasawardedcompensationtakingmonthlyincome ofwifeatRs.5,000/p/m. 55Principleofassessmentofquantumdeterminationofincome whetherHRA,CCAandMA,paidbyemployershouldbetakenin toconsiderationheldyes 2011ACJ1441(SC) 55 Multiplier unmarriedsonpropermultiplieraverageageof parentstobeconsidered 2011 (7) SCC65=2011ACJ1990(SC)=2011(3)SCC(Civil) 529ShyamSinghbutdifferingviews inP .S.Somnathanv/sDist. Insurance Officer, reported in 2011 ACJ 737 and Amrit Bhanu Shaliv/sNICom.,reportedin2012ACJ2002and Saktideviv/s NICom,reportedin2010(14)SCC575=2012(1)SCC(Civ)766 56Loss of dependency deceased lady aged 31 claimant husband,notfinanciallydependentonthedeceasedwhether heisentitledforcompensationforlossofdependencyheld no 2011ACJ1734(DEL) But in case of Arun Kumar Agrawal, reported in 2010(9) SCC, ApexCourthasawardedcompensationtakingmonthlyincomeof wifeatRs.50000p/a. 57Deceasedaged57 multiplierof9 awardedbySCrelyingon SarlaVerma 58Tribunal deducted 1/3 from the income of decease
contentionofICthatasdeceasedwasunmarried,50%shouldhave been deducted whether Tribunal erred in deducting only 1/3 amountaspersonalexpenditure?heldno 2009 ACJ 2359(SC), 2004 ACJ 699 (SC), 2006 ACJ 1058 (SC), 2008ACJ1357(SC),2009ACJ1619(SC) 59Death of the owner of the offending vehicle, prior to the accidentwhetherthetransfereeinpossessionhastobedeemed tobecoveredbypolicyandTribunalerredinexoneratingtheIC fromliabilityheldyesICheldliable furtherheldthatonthe deathofowner,transferofIPisautomatic 2003ACJ534(SC),2002ACJ1035(MAD),2001ACJ567(GUJ), 2011ACJ1717(ORI) 60Absence of PMreportwhetherclaimantsareentitledtoget compensation in absence of PM report held yes as there are sufficient evidence to prove that deceased died because of the vehicularaccidentnonavailabilityofPMreportdoesnotabsolve theICfromitsliability 2011ACJ2197(MAD),2012AAC3240. 61ICseekstoavoiditliabilityonthegroundthatAwasdriving thevehicleclaimantclaimedthatvehiclewasbeingdrivenbyB IC sought reliance on statement made u/s 161 of Cr.P .C and chargesheetsamearenotsubstantivepieceofevidenceevenIC hasfailedtoprovethecontentsofthesamenootherevidence wasproducedbyICtopointoutthatparticularpersonwasplying thevehicleICheldliable 2011ACJ2213(ALL)
62TribunalisaCOURTandproceedingsbeforeitarejudicial proceedingswhether EvidenceActappliestoMVAc t?held yes2011ACJ2228(JAR) 63Dishonour of cheque issued towards premium policy cancellationofliabilityofICICcancelledthepolicyandintimated aboutittotheownerwhetherICisliableheldno 2001ACJ638(SC),2011ACJ2230(BOM) 64PermitICseekstoavoiditsliabilityonthegroundthatowner ofTaxi, whichhitthepedestrianshadviolatedtermsofpolicyas taxi could not have been used in a public place after expiry of permitpolicywasfoundtobevalidnocaseofICthatpassengers werebeingcarriedforhireandrewardandpolicydidnotcoverthe caseofTPvictimdidnotsufferinjurieswhiletravellinginthetaxi forhireorrewardmereexpiryofpermitwouldnotabsolveICto pay compensation, asnoprovision ofMV Act isshown byIC to pointoutthatowneroftaxiwasunderlegalobligation,nottoply taxiaftertheexpiryofpermit 2011ACJ2242(KER) 65ActpolicydeceasedwasnottheownerofthecarICseeksto avoiditsliability onthegroundthatdeceasedwasdrivingthe car without the consent of the owner owner deposed that deceasedwasdrivingthecarwithhisconsentwhetherICisliable heldnodeceasedsteppedintotheshoesoftheowner 2009ACJ2020(SC),2011ACJ2251(P&H) 66U/S149(2),(4)and(5)ofMVActtermsofIPIChasrightto contest on all grounds including negligence and quantum
whethervalidheldnoICcanchallengedtheawardonlyonthe pointsavailabletoitu/s149oftheAct2011ACJ2253(P&H) 67Deathoftheownerofthetruck ICdisputeditsliabilityon thegroundthatthereisActpolicyandriskonlyTPiscovered sustainable held no it was proved by the claimant that extra premium was paid and IC has deliberately not mentioned the natureofpolicyinthecovernoteICfailedtodischargeitsburden andprovethatpolicywasActpolicyandICsliabilitywasrestricted tostatutoryliabilityICheldliable 2011ACJ2275(SIK) 68Marriagepartyalongwithdowryarticlesinthegoodsvehicle whethergratuitouspassengersheldnoICisliable 2011ACJ2319(GUJ),2012AAC3211(Bom) Butalsosee2009(2)SCC75U.I.A.comv/s Rattanicontraryview bySCRecentdecisionofGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofO.I.Com v.s Chaturaben Bhurabhai Pipaliya, F.A. 2741 of 2008, dated 03.04.2013(MDSJ) 69DrivinglicenceDLissuedon7.8.79renewedfortheperiod between 18.11.89 to 17.11.92 again renewed for the period between 27.7.95 to 17.11.98 accident occurred on 30.9.94 whetherICcanavoiditsliabilityonthegroundthatdriverwasnot havingvalidandeffectiveDLonthedateofaccident?heldno word effective licence used u/s 3 of Act, cant be imported to section149(2)breaksinvalidityortenureofDLdoesnotattract provisionsfordisqualificationofthedrivertogetDLICheldliable 2011ACJ2337(ALL)
70DL IC seeks toavoid itsliabilityon the ground that DL was renewedbyRTOclerkandnotby authorizedofficerofRTO IC failedtoexaminedtheresponsibleofficerofRTOtoproveits casewhetherICisliableheldyes 2011ACJ2385(J&K) 71Accidentoccurredon20.5.85at7.45pmIPvalidfrom20.5.85 to19.5.86IPdoesnotspeakaboutthe timeofcommencementof policywhenpolicyissilentaboutthetimeofitscommencement, startingtimehastobetakenasfromthemidnightof20.5.85and itsendsat2400hrson19.5.86Icheldliable 2011ACJ2394(DEL) 72 Jeepdrivenbyfatheroftheownerpolicycoversonlysix passengersactually11passengersweretravelling jeepfellin toditchresultingdeathofallpassengersICisliablenotforall claimantICisdirectedtopaycompensationandfurtherorderedto recoverfromtheowneranddriver 2011AIRSCW2802K.M.Poonam 73 NFL applicationnotfilledalongwithmainpetitionTribunal rejectedtheapplicationfiledlateronHCconfirmedthesaidorder whether valid heldno claimant can fileNFL u/s 140at any timeduringpendencyofmainclaimpetition. 2010(8)SCC620 74 Order of pay and recover whether HC or Tribunal can directtheICtopassanorderofpayandrecover?question referredtoLargerBenchforconsideration 2009(3)GLH377(SC)N.I.Comv/sParvathneni
75NewIndiaAssuranceCompanyLimitedvs. SadanandMukhi andOthersreportedin(2009)2SCC417,wherein,thesonofthe ownerwasdrivingthevehicle,whodiedintheaccident,wasnot regardedasthirdparty.Inthesaidcasethecourtheldthatneither Section163AnorSection166wouldbeapplicable. 76 The deceased was traveling on Motor Cycle, which he borrowedfromitsrealownerforgoingfromIlkaltohisnative place Gudur. When the said motor cycle was proceeding on IlkalKustagl,NationalHighway,abullockcartproceedingaheadof the said motor cycle carrying ironsheet,which suddenly stopped andconsequentlydeceasedwhowasproceedingonthesaidmotor cycledashedbullockcart.Consequenttotheaforesaidincident,he sustainedfatalinjuriesoverhisvitalpartofbodyandonthewayto Govt.Hospital,Ilkal,hedied. It was forcefully argued by the counsel appearing for the respondent that the claimants are not the `third party', and therefore,theyarenotentitledtoclaimanybenefitunderSection 163AoftheMVA.Insupportofthesaidcontention,thecounsel reliedonthedecisionofthisCourtinthecaseofOrientalInsurance Co.Ltd.v.RajniDevi,(2008)5SCC736;andNewIndiaAssurance Co.Ltd.v.SadanandMukhiandOrs.,(2009)2SCC417. InthecaseofOrientalInsuranceCompanyLtd.v.RajniDeviand Others,(2008)5SCC736,wherein,ithasbeencategoricallyheld that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurancecompanywouldbeunlimited.Itwasalsoheldinthesaid decision that where, however, compensation is claimed for the
deathoftheowneroranotherpassengerofthevehicle,thecontract ofinsurancebeinggovernedbythecontractquaIP ,theclaimofthe claimant against the insurance companywould dependupon the termsthereof.ItwasheldinthesaiddecisionthatSection163Aof theMVAcannotbesaidtohaveanyapplicationinrespectofan accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved.Thedecisionfurtherheldthatthequestionisnolonger resintegra.Theliabilityundersection163AoftheMVAisonthe ownerofthevehicle.Soapersoncannotbeboth,aclaimantasalso a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintainedaclaim in termsof Section 163AoftheMVA. ApexCourtheld theratiooftheaforesaid decisionisclearlyapplicabletothefactsofthepresentcase.Inthe presentcase,thedeceasedwasnottheownerofthemotorbikein question.Heborrowedthesaidmotorbikefromitsrealowner.The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbikealthoughhewasauthorisedtodrivethesaidvehicleby itsowner,andtherefore,hewouldstepintotheshoesoftheowner ofthemotorbike. 2009(13)SCC710Ningmmav/sUnitedIndia 77 One of the grounds which is available to the Insurance Companyfordenyingitsstatutoryliabilityisthatthepolicyis void having been obtained by reason of nondisclosure of a materialfactorbyarepresentationoffactwhichwasfalsein somematerialparticular onceavalidcontractisenteredinto, only because of amistake,the name oforiginalownernotbeen
mentionedinthecertificatesofregistration,itcannotbesaidthat thecontractitselfisvoidunlessitwasshownthatinobtainingthe saidcontract,afraudhasbeenpracticednoparticularsoffraud pleadedICheldliable 2009(1)SCC58 78Insured tendered chequeto Insureron23/1/1995,towards premium CovernotewasissuedbytheinsurerOn27/1/1995 accident took place & third party, suffered severe injuries The chequegivenforinsurance,dishonoredAfterthedateofaccident InsurancePolicywascancelledHowever,on30/1/1995,insured paidcashtoinsurerInsurercontendedthatacontractofinsurance wouldbevalidonlywhenchequepaidforpremiumishonoured On the dishonor of the cheque the contract being without consideration,neednotbeperformedHeld,covernotewasissued and covernote would come within the purview of definition of "CertificateofInsurance"andalsoan"insurancepolicy"Itremains validtillitiscancelled. 2008(3)GLH791(SC)AbhaysingPratapsingWaghela 79Motoraccidentinsuranceclaimdeceasedwastravellingasa pillionrider felldownfromthescooterandsuccumbedtothe injuriesclaimrepudiatedbyinsurancecompanyongroundthat deceasedbeingagratuitouspassengerandinsurancepolicydidnot cover risk of injuryordeathofsuchpassengerwhetherpillion rideronascooterwouldbeathirdpartywithinthemeaningofS. 147oftheActheld,liabilityoftheinsurancecompanyinacaseof thisnatureisnotextendedtoapillionriderofthemotorvehicle
unlesstherequisiteamountofpremiumispaidforcoveringhis/her risk(ii)thelegalobligationarisingu/s.147oftheActcannotbe extendedtoaninjuryordeathoftheownerofvehicleorthepillion rider(iii)thepillionriderinatwowheelerwasnottobetreated asathird partywhen theaccident has taken placeowingto rashandnegligentridingofthescooterandnotonthepartof thedriverofanothervehicle 2008(7)SCC428 80RespondentNo.2wastheownerofaMiniBus.Aninsurance policyinrespectofthesaidvehiclewassoughttobetakenbyhim. Forthesaidpurpose,thesecondrespondent issuedathirdparty cheque towards payment of insurance premium . The DevelopmentOfficeroftheappellantbyinadvertenceissuedacover note. However, when the said mistake came to his notice, the respondentNo.2wascontactedbytheDevelopmentOfficer.Hewas askedtopaytheamountofpremium.Itwasnottenderedandin stead the respondent No.2 is said to have returned the original covernoteandtookbackthecheque.Theoriginalcovernoteas also all the duplicate copies thereof was cancelled. The said insurancecoverwasissuedfortheperiod3.9.1991to2.9.1992.On or about 12.9.1991, the said vehicle met with an accident. First respondentwhosufferedaninjurythereinfiledaclaimpetitionin terms of the provisions contained in Sec. 166effect liability of insurer when vehicle met with accident within the period under covernoteheld,nopremiumcouldbesaidtohavebeenpaidno privityofcontractbetweeninsurerandinsuredSupremeCourtin
jurisdiction under Art. 142 of Constitution, directed insurer to recover the paid compensation from insuredowner appeal allowed. 2008(7)SCC526 81S.163Aliabilityunderliabilityu/s.163Aisontheownerof the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipientforthesaidpurposeonlythetermsofthecontractof insurance could be taken recourse to liability of insurance companywasconfinedtoRs.1,00,000appealpartlyallowed. 2008(5)SCC736RajniDevi 82Whetherapersonwhohireda goodscarriagevehicle would comewithinpurviewofSubsec.1ofS.147oftheAct althoughno goods of his as such were carried in the vehicle claimant respondent hired an auto rickshaw which was goods carriage vehicle and he was sitting by the side of the driver held, if a person has been travelingin acapacity otherthan the owner of goods,theinsurerwouldnotbeliableitiswellsettledthatterm 'anyperson' envisagedunderthe saidprovisionshallnot include anygratuitouspassengerinathreewheelergoodscarriage,driver couldnothaveallowedanybodyelsetosharehisseatTribunal andHighCourtshouldhaveheldthatownerofvehicleisguiltyof breachofconditionsofpolicy 2008(12)SCC657 83MotorVehiclesAct,1988S.147(5),S.149(1)InsuranceAct, 1938S.64VBIndianContractAct,1872S.2,S.51,S.124 Liability of Insurer Dishonour of cheque for premium
CancellationofInsurancepolicybyinsureronaccountofdishonor ofchequeforpremiumThefactofcancellationwasinformedby Insurance Company to the insured and RTO Accident occurred thereafterHeld,InsuranceCompanywouldnotbeliabletosatisfy theclaim. 2008(3)GLH168(SC)Deddappav/sN.I.Com 84MotorVehiclesAct,1988S.147liabilityofinsurerclaim petitionfiledbyrespondent,alabourer, slippeddownfromtrolley oftractor,allegedlywasbeingdrivenrashlyandnegligentlybyits driver,cameunderthewheelsthereofinjuringhisgallbladderand left thigh, as a result where of he suffered grievous injuries tractorwassupposedtobeusedforagriculturalpurpose held, noinsurancecoverinrespectoftrolleytractorwasinsuredonly for agricultural work, excluding digging of earth and brickkiln purposethus,claim,notmaintainableasrespondentwasmere a gratuitous passenger, not covered under S. 147 however, consideringempowrishconditionanddisability,insurerdirectedto satisfytheawardwithrighttorealizesamefromowneroftractor appealallowed. 2007(7)SCC56 85Followingprinciples/guidelinelaiddownby FullBenchofSC in Para no. 108 in the case of N.I. Com. v/s Swaran Singh, reportedin2004(1)JT109=2004(1)GLH691(SC)( alsosee PointNo103) (i)ChapterXIoftheMotorVehiclesAct,1988providingcompulsory insurance of vehicles against thirdparty risks is a social welfare
legislationtoextendreliefbycompensationtovictimsofaccidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurancecoverageofallvehiclesarewiththisparamountobject and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuatethesaidobject. (ii)Aninsurerisentitledtoraiseadefenceinaclaimpetitionfiled u/s.163AorSec.166oftheMotorVehiclesAct,1988,interalia,in termsofSec.149(2)(a)(ii)ofthesaidAct. (iii)Thebreachofpolicyconditione.g.disqualificationofthedriver orinvaliddrivinglicenceofthedriver,ascontainedinsubsec.(2) (a)(ii)ofSec.149,hastobeprovedtohavebeencommittedbythe insuredforavoidingliabilitybytheinsurer.Mereabsence,fakeor invaliddrivinglicenceordisqualificationofthedriverfordrivingat therelevanttime,arenotinthemselvesdefencesavailabletothe insureragainsteithertheinsuredorthethirdparties.Toavoidits liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insuredwasguiltyofnegligenceandfailedtoexercisereasonable careinthematteroffulfillingtheconditionofthepolicyregarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualifiedtodriveattherelevanttime. (iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liabilitymustnotonlyestablishtheavailabledefence(s)raisedin thesaidproceedingsbutmustalsoestablish"breach"onthepartof theownerofthevehicle;theburdenofproofwhereforewouldbe onthem. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said
burdenwouldbedischarged,inasmuchasthesamewoulddepend uponthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcase. (vi)Evenwheretheinsurerisabletoprovebreachonthepartof theinsuredconcerningthepolicyconditionregardingholdingofa validlicencebythedriverorhisqualificationtodriveduringthe relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liabilitytowardstheinsuredunlessthesaidbreachorbreacheson theconditionofdrivinglicenceis/aresofundamentalasarefound tohavecontributedtothecauseoftheaccident.TheTribunalsin interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose"andtheconceptof"fundamentalbreach"toallowdefences availabletotheinsureru/s.149(2)oftheAct. (vii)Thequestion,astowhethertheownerhastakenreasonable caretofindoutastowhetherthedrivinglicenceproducedbythe driver(afakeoneorotherwise),doesnotfulfilltherequirementsof lawornotwillhavetobedeterminedineachcase. (viii)Ifavehicleatthetimeofaccidentwasdrivenbyaperson havingalearner'slicence,theinsurancecompanieswouldbeliable tosatisfythedecree. (ix)TheClaimsTribunalconstitutedu/s.165readwithSec.168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to propertyofthirdpartyarisinginuseofmotorvehicle.Thesaid poweroftheTribunalisnotrestrictedtodecidetheclaimsinter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other (this view is followed in the
caseofKUSUMseepointno101).Inthecourseofadjudicating theclaimforcompensationandtodecidetheavailabilityofdefence ordefencestotheinsurer,theTribunalhasnecessarilythepower andjurisdictiontodecidedisputesintersebetweentheinsurerand theinsured.Thedecisionrenderedontheclaimsanddisputesinter sebetweentheinsurerandinsuredinthecourseofadjudicationof claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as providedinSec.174oftheActforenforcementandexecutionof theawardinfavouroftheclaimants. (x)WhereonadjudicationoftheclaimundertheActtheTribunal arrivesataconclusionthattheinsurerhassatisfactorilyprovedits defenceinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofSec.149(2)readwith subsec.(7),asinterpretedbythisCourtabove,theTribunalcan directthattheinsurerisliabletobereimbursedbytheinsuredfor thecompensationandotheramountswhichithasbeencompelled to pay to the thirdpartyunder the awardof the Tribunal.Such determinationofclaimbytheTribunalwillbeenforceableandthe money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverableonacertificateissuedbytheTribunaltotheCollector inthesamemanneru/s.174oftheActasarrearsoflandrevenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenueonlyif,asrequiredbysubsec.(3)ofSec.168oftheAct theinsuredfailstodeposittheamountawardedinfavourofthe insurerwithinthirtydaysfromthedateofannouncementofthe awardbytheTribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in subsec. (4) with the proviso thereunderandsubsec.(5)whichareintendedtocoverspecified contingencies mentionedthereintoenabletheinsurertorecover theamountpaidunderthecontractofinsuranceonbehalfofthe insuredcanbetakenrecoursetobytheTribunalandbeextendedto claimsanddefencesoftheinsureragainsttheinsuredbyrelegating themtotheremedybeforeregularCourtincaseswhereongiven factsandcircumstancesadjudicationoftheirclaimsintersemight delaytheadjudicationoftheclaimsofthevictims". 86Theeffectoffakelicensehastobeconsideredinthelightof what has been stated by the Hon Supreme Court in New India AssuranceCo.,ShimlaV/s.KamlaandOrs.,20014JT235.Once thelicenseisafakeonetherenewalcannottakeawaytheeffectof fakelicense.ItwasobservedinKamla'scase(supra)asfollows: "12. Asapoint oflawwe have nomannerofdoubtthat afake licencecannotgetitsforgeryoutfitstrippedoffmerelyonaccount ofsomeofficerrenewingthesamewithorwithoutknowingittobe forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers any Licensing Authorityto"renewadrivinglicenceissuedundertheprovisionsof this Act with effect from the date of its expiry". No Licensing Authorityhasthepowertorenewafakelicenceand,therefore,a renewalifatallmadecannottransformafakelicenceasgenuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported orderofastatutoryauthoritywouldeverremaincounterfeitalbeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities wouldhaveactedonthedocumentunwittinglyontheassumption
thatitisgenuine". 87S. 147, 166 motor accident owner himself involved in accident, resulting in his death he himself was negligent accident did not involve any other motor vehicle liability of InsuranceCompanyclaimpetitionunderS.166maintainability of held, liability of insurercompany is to the extent of indemnificationofinsuredagainstinjuredpersons,athirdpersonor inrespectofdamagesofpropertyifinsuredcannotbefastened withanyliability,questionnotarise additionalpremiumunder theinsurancepolicywasnotpaidinrespectofentireriskof deathorbodilyinjuryofownerofvehiclepresentcasedidnot fall under S. 147(b) as it covers a risk of a third party only 2007(9)SCC263JummaShaha 88MotorVehiclesAct,1988S.147,157,217motoraccident liability of the Insurance Company towards third party two wheeler of respondent no. 5 was insured with the appellant companyhowever,anendorsementregarding pillionrider was notincludedintheInsuranceContracttwowheelerwassoldto respondentno.1duringtheperiodofavailabilityofinsurancecover salewasnotintimatedtotheInsuranceCompanyasaresultof an accident, the pillion rider died compensation awarded by Tribunalheld,theActof1988isapplicabletothecaseasthe accidenttookplaceafterthecommencementoftheAct, 1988 thestatutoryinsurancepolicydidnotcovertheriskofdeathofor bodily injury to gratuitous passenger therefore, the Insurance Companyisnotliabletopaycompensationforthedeathofthe
pillionrider further,failuretointimationforthetransferofthe vehiclewouldnoteffectthirdpartiesclaimforcompensation 2006(4)SCC404U.I.I.Comv/sTilakSingh 89 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S. 147, 149, 166, 167, 173 Workmen'sCompensationAct,1923 S.3appealagainstthe order of High Court directingappellant tosatisfywhole award motoraccidentcasefatalthirdpartyriskinvolvedliabilityof vehicle owner and insurer to be decided applicability of Workmen'sCompensationActaccidentoftruckdriverdiedon thespotheirsofdeceasedcontendedthattruckwas15yearsold andwasnotingoodconditionandwasnotwellmaintainedclaim forcompensationtruckownerdeniedhisfaultonthegroundthat driverwasdrunkatthetimeoftheaccidentTribunaldismissed claimpetitionholdingfaultofdriverfortheaccidentclaimants preferred appeal before High Court High Court observed that accidenttookplacebecausethearmboltofthetruckbrokeandnot due to the fault of driver awarded Rs. 2,10,000/ with 10% interestasacompensationanddirectedappellanttosatisfywhole awardappellantcompanydefendeditselfonthegroundthatas perS.147and149oftheMotorVehiclesActisconcerned,liability oftheinsurerisrestricteduptothelimitprovidedbyW.C.Act insurerappellantpreferredthisleavepetitionwhetherappellant insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation to claimantoritsliabilityisrestrictedtothelimitprescribedinW.C. Actheldyesfurtherheldthattheinsurancepolicywasfor'Act Liability'andsotheliabilityofappellantwouldnotbeunlimitedbut
wouldbelimitedasperW.C.Actappellantdirectedtopayclaim amountuptotheextentprescribedinW.C.Actandowneroftruck isdirectedtopayremainingclaimamount 2005(6)SCC172N.I.Cv/sPrembaiPatel 90MotorVehiclesAct,1988S.147questionforconsiderationas to whether comprehensive policy would cover risk of injury to owner of vehicle also Tribunal directed driver and insurance company to pay compensation to appellantowner of vehicle appellantchallengedorderwherebyitwasheldthatasappellant wasownerofvehicleinsurancecompanyisnotliabletopayhim any compensation insurance policy covers liability incurred by insuredinrespectofdeathoforbodilyinjurytoanypersoncarried in vehicle or damage to any property of third party whether premium paid under heading 'Own damage' is for covering liabilitytowardspersonalinjury held,S.147doesnotrequire insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to ownerofvehiclewhereownerofvehiclehasnoliabilitytothird party,insurancecompanyalsohasnoliabilityalsoithasnotbeen shownthatpolicycoveredanyriskforinjurytoownerhimself premiumpaidunderheading'Owndamage'doesnotcoverliability towardspersonalinjurypremiumistowardsdamage tovehicle andnotforinjurytopersonofownerappealdismissed. 2004(8)SCC553Dhanrajv/sN.I.A.Com 91MotorVehiclesAct,1988S.147questionforconsiderationas to whether comprehensive policy would cover risk of injury to owner of vehicle also Tribunal directed driver and insurance
company to pay compensation to appellantowner of vehicle appellantchallengedorderwherebyitwasheldthatasappellant wasownerofvehicleinsurancecompanyisnotliabletopayhim any compensation insurance policy covers liability incurred by insuredinrespectofdeathoforbodilyinjurytoanypersoncarried in vehicle or damage to any property of third party whether premiumpaidunderheading'Owndamage'isforcoveringliability towardspersonalinjuryheld,S.147doesnotrequireinsurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to owner of vehicle whereownerofvehiclehasnoliabilitytothirdparty insurancecompanyhasnoliabilityalso ithasnotbeenshown thatpolicycoveredanyriskforinjurytoownerhimselfpremium paidunderheading'Owndamage'doesnotcoverliabilitytowards personalinjurypremiumistowardsdamagetovehicleandnotfor injurytopersonofownerappealdismissed. 2009(2)SCC417N.I.Av/sSaddanandMukhi 92MotorVehiclesAct,1988S.94,95,145,147,149(2),155 truckwasinsuredwiththeappellantinthenameofthehusbandof respondent truck was hypothecated to a Bank renewal of contractofinsuranceusedtobedonebytheBanknostepwas takeneitherbytheBankorthelegalheirsofdeceasedtogetthe registrationofvehicletransferredintheirnamesvehiclemetwith accidentdriverdieddriver'slegalheirsfiledanapplicationfor grantofcompensationagainstthewidowofthedeceasedandthe appellantInsurance Company Workmen's Compensation Commissionerdirectedpaymentofcompensationtowidowoftruck
driverHighCourtdismissedappealappealagainstheld,oneof the grounds which is available to the Insurance Company for denyingitsstatutoryliabilityisthatthepolicyisvoidhavingbeen obtained by reason of nondisclosure of a material fact or by a representationoffactwhichwasfalseinsomematerialparticular onceavalidcontractisenteredinto,onlybecauseofamistake,the nameoforiginalownernotbeenmentionedinthecertificatesof registration,itcannotbesaidthatthecontractitselfisvoidunless itwasshownthatinobtainingthesaidcontract,afraudhasbeen practicednoparticularsoffraudpleadednoinfirmityinHigh Court'sjudgment 2009(1)SCC558U.I.Iv/sSantroDevi 93 MotorVehiclesAct,1988S.15,149liabilityofinsurance companyTribunalopinedthatrespondentinsurancecompanywas notliable toindemnifyinsured novalidandeffectivedriving licence nor renewal of driving licence whether to be consideredasviolationoftermsofinsurancepolicyheld,itwas foundthatdriverofvehiclewasnothavingvalidlicenceondateof accidentaslicencewasnotrenewedwithinthirtydaysofitsexpiry renewalafter30dayswillhavenoretrospectiveeffectthereis abreachofconditionofcontract insurancecompanywillhave noliabilityinpresentcaseorderofTribunalaswellasHighCourt upheld 2008(8)SCC165RamBabuTiwari 94(A)MotorVehiclesAct,1988S.149(1)motoraccidentclaim liabilityofinsurerthirdpartyriskTribunalheldthataccident
wasduetorashandnegligentdrivingofthescooterbydriverand granted Rs. 3,01,500 as compensation with interest at 9% per annum in favour of the claimants and against the second respondentownerofthescooterandappellantinsurancecompany whetherinsurancecompanycouldbeheldliabletopaytheamount of compensation for the default of the scooterist who was not holding licence for driving two wheeler scooter but had driving licenceofdifferentclassofvehicleintermsofS.10oftheAct held,wheretheinsurersrelyingupontheprovisionsofviolationof lawbytheassured,takeanexceptiontopaytheassuredorathird party, they must prove a willful violation of the law by the assuredprovisionsofsubsec.(4)and(5)ofS.149oftheAct maybeconsideredastotheliabilityoftheinsurertosatisfythe decreeatthefirstinstance liabilityoftheinsurertosatisfythe decree passed in favour of a third party is also statutory. (B)MotorVehiclesAct,1988S.10(2)motoraccidentclaim liabilityofinsurerappellantinsurancecompanycannotbeheld liabletopaytheamountofcompensationtotheclaimantsforthe causeofdeathinroadaccidentwhichhadoccurredduetorashand negligent driving of scooterist who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident scooteristwaspossessingdrivinglicenceofdrivingHMVandhewas driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violationofS.10(2)oftheAct 2008(12)SCC385Zahirunisha
95ConstitutionofIndiaArt.136MotorVehiclesAct,1988S. 149Tractorplyingonhire Labourersittingonthemudguard ofTractor FallingdownGettingcrushedunderthewheels Driver not possessing a valid license Tribunal awarding compensationofRs.2LakhsHighCourtsummarilydismissingthe appealofInsuranceCompanyHeld:Itwasnotafitcaseforany interferenceunderArticle136oftheConstitutionofIndia,however, itisopentotheInsuranceCompanytorecovertheamountfrom owner by filing application before the Tribunal without filing a separateexecutionpetitionagainsttheowner 2008(2)GLH393(SC)N.I.AComv/sDarshanDevi 96MotorVehiclesAct,1988S.149ConstitutionofIndiaArt. 136extentofliabilityofinsurermotorvehicleaccidentcausedby driverpossessingfakelicenseatrelevanttimeTribunalrejecting the insurer's liability validity driver, brother of owner of said vehicle held, holding of fake license not by itself absolves insurerofitsliabilitybutinsurerhastoprovethatownerof vehicle was aware of fact that license was fake and still permitted driver to drive on facts, insurer liability to pay compensationcontradictedthus,balanceamountofclaimantand amountalreadypaidbyinsurertoclaimantstoberecoveredfrom owneranddriverofvehicle 2008(3)SCC193PremKumariv/sPrahladDev 97 MotorVehiclesAct,1988S.149(2)(a)(ii)motoraccident liabilityofinsurerinclaimpetition,TribunalheldthatInsurance Companyisliabletopaycompensationlicenceofdriverwasnot
issuedbyacompetentauthority contentionofinsurerthatby employingadriverwithinvaliddrivinglicenceownerinsured hasbreachedtheconditionofS.149(2)(a)(ii) held,ownerhad satisfied himself that the driver had a licence and was driving completelytherewasnobreachofS.149(2)(a)(ii) ifthedriver produces a driving licence, which on the fact of it looks genuine,ownerisnotexpectedtofindoutwhetherthelicence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not therefore, insurance company would not be absolved of its liabilityinordertoavoiditsliability,insurerhastoprovethatthe insuredwasguiltyofnegligenceandfailedtoexercisereasonable caseinthematteroffulfillingtheconditionofthepolicyregarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualifiedtodriveattherelevanttime LalChandv/sO.I.Com2006(7)SCC318 98 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 u/s. 149, 163A, 166 and 170 VehiclewasusedasacommercialvehicleDriverwasholderof licence to drive LMV Driver not holding licence to drive commercialvehicleBreachofcontractualconditionofinsurance Ownerofvehiclecannotcontendthathehasnoliabilitytoverifyas towhetherdriverpossessedavalidlicenceExtentofthirdparty liabilityofinsurerDeathofa12yeargirlinaccidentClaimants arefrompoorbackgroundAfterhavingsufferedmentalagony, notpropertosendthemforanotherroundoflitigationInsurer directedtopaytoclaimantsandthenrecoverfromtheownerin viewofNanjappan'scase[2005SCC(Cri.)148].
2006(2)GLH15(SC)N.I.AComv/sKusumRai 99 MotorVehiclesAct,1939S.96motoraccidentliabilityof insurancecompanyliabilityofinsurerlimiteduptoRs.50,000/as perlimitsofpolicyHighCourtfoundthatinsurerwasliableupto Rs.50,000/butgavedirectiontopayclaimantsentireamountof compensation,butwouldbeentitledtorecoveramountexcessinits liability from owner of vehicle avoidance clause in policy providedthatnothingthereinwouldaffecttherightofpersonwho isentitledtoindemnificationfrominsurertorecoverunderS.96of the Act whether, directionsgiven by HighCourt in consonance withtermsofpolicyheld,consideringavoidanceclauseinpolicy, thedirectionsgivenbyHighCourtareintermsofpolicy, 2011 ACJ 2878 (SC), Santaben Vankar 2011 (3) GCD 2101 (GUJ)=2012AAC2528 100In thiscase sincethe personridingthemotorcycle atthe time of accident wasa minor,the responsibility for payingthe compensation awarded fell on the owner of the motorcycle. In fact,inthecaseofIshwarChandraV/s.OrientalInsuranceCo.Ltd. [(2007)3AD(SC)753],itwasheldbythisCourtthatincasethe driverofthevehicledidnothavealicenceatall,theliabilityto makepaymentofcompensationfellontheownersinceitwashis obligation to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriatelicencetodrivethevehicle.BeforetheTribunalreliance wasalsoplacedonthedecisioninthecaseofNationalInsurance Co.Ltd.V/s.G.Mohd.Vani&Ors.[2004ACJ1424]andNational Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Candingeddawa & Ors. [2005 ACJ 40],
whereinitwasheldthatifthedriveroftheoffendingvehicledid nothaveavaliddrivinglicence,thentheInsuranceCompanyafter payingthecompensationamountwouldbeentitledtorecoverthe same from the owner of the vehicle Motor Accident Claims Tribunal quite rightly saddled the liability for payment of compensation on the Petitioner and, accordingly, directed the InsuranceCompanytopaytheawardedamounttotheawardees and,thereafter,torecoverthesamefromthePetitioner.Thesaid question has been duly considered by the Tribunal and was correctlydecided.TheHighCourtrightlychosenottointerferewith thesame. 2011(6)SCC425JawaharSinghv/sBalaJain 101 Death in motor accident liability of Insurance Company Tribunal observed that driver of bus was not possessing valid driving license compensation of Rs. 2,68,800 awarded respondentno.3and4weredriverandownerofbusrespondent no. 3 and 4 were liable to make payment direction issued to appellant/ICtodepositamountandthatitcanrecoverthesame from respondents appellant/IC deposited necessary amount recoveryofamountExecutionPetition(EP)filedbyICwhether civilsuitwasrequiredtobefiledinsteadoffilingexecutionpetition held no when such direction to file suit instead of filling EP issued by Tribunal same is not sustainable EP is held to be maintainable wheneverorderofpayandrecoverispassedby Tribunal,thenitmustbeheldtohavebeendoneinexerciseof inherentpowerofTribunal Section168oftheMotorVehicles
Act,1988,intermswhereof,itisnotonlyentitledtodetermine theamountofclaimasputforthbytheclaimantforrecovery thereoffromtheinsurer,ownerordriverofthevehiclejointly orseverallybutalsothedisputebetweentheinsurerontheone hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accidentinasmuchascanberesolvedbytheTribunalinsucha proceedingmanySCratiosconsidered. 2009(8)SCC377N.I.A.Comv/sKusum 102Aninsurancepolicy,inlaw,couldbeissuedfromafuture date.Apolicy,however,whichisissuedfromafuturedatemust bewiththeconsentoftheholderofthepolic y.Theinsurance company cannot issue a policy unilaterally from a future date withouttheconsentoftheholderofapolicy2009(13)SCC370 BlabirKaurv/sN.I.A.Com 103(A)MotorVehiclesAct,1988u/s.2(10)39,10,1416,19 21, 23, 27, 147, 149, 163A, 165, 166 and 168 Liability of insurerBreachofconditionofinsurancecontract Absence,fake orinvaliddrivinglicenceofdriverDisqualificationofdriver Case Law analyzed Principles stated Held that provisions of compulsoryinsuranceagainstthirdpartyrisksisasocialwelfare legislationtoextendreliefofcompensationtovictimsofaccidents Mereabsence,fakeorinvaliddrivinglicenceordisqualificationof the driver are not in themselves the defences available to the insurerTheinsurerhastoprovenegligenceandbreachofpolicy conditionsTheburdenofproofwouldbeontheinsurerEven
whentheinsurerprovessuchbreachofpolicyconditionsinabove circumstances,insurerwillhavetoprovethatsuchbreachwasso fundamental that it was responsible for cause of accident, otherwise,insurerwillbeliableIfthedriverhasLearner'slicence, insurerwouldbeliable. (B)MotorVehiclesAct,1988 u/s.165,149(2),168,174 The Tribunalininterpretingthepolicyconditionswouldapply"therule ofmainpurpose"andconceptof"fundamentalbreach"toallowthe defences available to the insurer Further held that powers of Tribunalarenotrestrictedtoonlydecideclaimsbetweenclaimants andinsuredorinsurerand/ordriver,ithasalsopowerstodecide thedisputesbetweeninsuredandinsurerandwhensuchdisputeis decided,itwouldbeexecutableu/S.174asitappliestoclaimants Noseparateproceedingsarerequired Evenwheninsurerisheld notliable,itwillsatisfytheawardinfavourofclaimantsand canrecoverfromtheinsuredu/S.174oftheAct. 2004(1)GLH 691(SC)N.I.A.Comv/sSwaranSingh. 104Injury case doctor assessed disability as 75% doctor was cross examined at length but nothing adverse was traced out TribunalandHCassesseddisabilityat50%,withouttherebeingany cogent reason whether proper held no once doctor has opinedthatinjuredhassustained75%disabilityandnothing adversewastracedoutinhiscrossexamination Tribunaland HCerredinassessingdisabilityas50% 2011 ACJ 2466 (SC) D.Sampath versus U.I.I. Com. Ltd, Rudra versusDivisionalManager,reportedin2011SC2572=2011(11)
SCC511. 105Contentionthatdriverofoffendingvehiclewas notholding valid licence at the time of accident and same was renewed afterthedateofaccidentwhetherICisliableHeldyes 2011 ACJ 2468 2004 ACJ 1 and 2001 ACJ 843 ( both SC) followed. 106WhenanorderofpayandrecoverispassedagainstICin such situation IC is said to be aggrieved party held no SC ratiosfollowed 2011ACJ2498para12 107Deductionincaseofdeathofbachelorwhetheritshould be2/3or1/3?held1/3deductionisjustandproper2009 ACJ2359(SC)DeoPatodifollowed 2011ACJ2518 108 U/s 147(1) package policy pillion rider liability of IC is soughttobeavoidedonthegroundthatnoadditionalpremiumhas beenpaidtocoverriskofpillionrider IRDAinitsclarification circularmentionedthatpassengercarriedinprivatevehicleand pillion riders are covered under the terms and conditions of SlanderedMotorPackagePolicyWhenvehicleiscoveredunder thepackagepolicyICistobeheldliable 2011ACJ2527(Ker) 109 Confessional statement made by driver of the offending vehicle,beforethetrialcourtwhether,insuchsituation, claimant is required to prove the negligence of the offending vehicle heldno2011ACJ2548,2011ACJ2568
110 Deceased died due to electrocution while engaged in welding job on a stationary truck andnotdue toanyfault or omissiononthepartofdriverwhethertheclaimpetitionu/s163A ismaintainableandICcanbeheldliable?heldyesanyfaultor omissiononthepartofdriverhasnorelevanceanddriverisnot necessarypartyinclaimpetitionfiledu/s163A 2011ACJ2608severalSCratiosfollowed 111 Death of passenger travelling in the Jeep IC disputed its liabilityonthegroundthattherewasActpolicyanddeceasedwas traveling on hire and policy does not cover the risk of person whethersustainable?heldnoICadducednoevidencetoprove thatJeepwasusedforhireandrewardasperregistrationcerti. All such persons come within the expression TP and since policycoversTPrisk,ICisheldliable 2011ACJ2638 112U/s168compensationstatutoryprovisionsclearlyindicates thatcompensationmustbejustanditcannotbea bonanza,nota sourceofprofitbutthesameshouldnotbeapittance 1999ACJ10(SC) 113 Foreigncitizenpoundordollarrateofexchangetherate prevailingonthedateofawardshouldbegranted2002ACJ1441 (SC)PatriciaJeanMahajanfollowed 2011ACJ2677 114 Whether review is maintainable held no several SC judgementsfollowed 2011ACJ2720,2012AAC3007(All)2011SCW2154,1999(1)
TAC449,2013ACJ1130 115U/S149(2),170ICneednottotake permissionofTribunal undersection170,ifitisjoinedasrespondentandnotjustasnotice 2011ACJ2729(SC)ShilaDutta 116U/s 163A Motorcycle hit a large stone lying on the tar roadfatalinjuryTribunalfoundthatdeceasedwasnegligentand entitled for compensation IC led no evidence to point out that deceasedwasnegligentICheldliable 2012ACJ1SinithabutalsoseeA.Sridhar,reportedin2012AAC 2478andalsosee 2004ACJ934 117Driverhithistruckagainsttree ICraisedobjectionthatits liability is restricted to liability under the W.C Act whether sustainableheldNoClauseofpolicycannotoverridestatutory provisionsofSection167,whichgivesoptiontoclaimanttooptany oftheremedyprovidedundertheAct 2012ACJ232006ACJ528SCfollowed 118ICsoughttoavoiditsliabilityonthegroundthatthough noticetodriverandownerwasissuedtoproducecopyofDL buttheydidnotproduceandsameamountstobreachofthe termsof theIPwhetherICisheldliableheld yesIssuanceof notice neither proves objections of IC nor draws any adverse inferenceagainstinsured 2012ACJ1071985ACJ397SCfollowed 119IC Cover note proposal Form was submitted to IC on 30.12..2002at11.11a.m.ICissuedcovernotementioningthat riskwasundertakenfrom31.12.2002whetherICisliableheld
nowhenthereisspecificmentionwithrespecttotheeffectivedate of policy, it starts from 31.12.2002 accident occurred on 30.12.2002at8p.m.heldICisnotliable 2012ACJ1312009(3)155PLR 65(SC)OrientalIns.Co.v/s Porselvifollowed 120Dependants death of unmarried woman living separately from the claimant held claimant was not dependent and not entitledforcompensationbutentitledtoget50000u/s140ofthe Act 2012ACJ1552007ACJ1279SCfollowed 121 TractortrolleyTPriskClaimantwastravelingin JeepIC sought to avoid its liability on the ground that Trolley was not insured whether sustainable Held no claimant was TP for the tractorandevenifTrolleywasnotinsured,ICisliableasaddition oftrolleytotractorwillnotmakeanydifferencetotheclaimantas heisTPfortractor 2012ACJ177 122 Death of workman who was sitting on the mudguard IC soughttoavoiditsliabilityonthegroundthatdriverwasholding Licensetodriveheavytransportvehiclebuthewasdrivingtractor which did not conform to the particular category License for highercategoryofvehiclewillnotamounttovalidandeffectiveDL todriveavehicleofanothercategoryICisheldnotliable 2012ACJ179 123U/s166E.S.I.Actu/s28,53and61 baru/s53and61 against receiving of compensation under any other Law
employee of Telecom Dept., insured under E.S.I. Act he was travelingindepartment'sjeepmetwithaccidentfatalcontention raisedthatinviewofthebarimposedu/s53and61ofE.S.IAct, claimpetitionunderM.Visnotmaintainablewhethersustainable held no section 28 does not cover accidental death while traveling in a vehicle on road and therefore claim petition underM.V .Actismaintainable 2012ACJ233 124 ClaimpetitionunderM.V .Actaftergettingcompensation undertheW.C.Actwhethermaintainableheldyes deceased diedduetoinjuriessustainedbychassisofthebusownedbythe corporationofwhichdeceasedwastheemployeeasdeceaseddied in motor accident claim petition under M.V . Act also, maintainable 2012ACJ2392003ACJ1759(Guj)followed 125 U/s 163A whether the claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable without joining the owner and driver of the offendingvehicle?heldyessincethequestionoffaultisnotof theoffendingvehicleisofnoconsequence 2012ACJ271 126 Passengers risk overloading truck loaded with coal and carrying 12 passengers capsized vehicle was insured covering driver, cleaner and 6 coolies IC contended that truck was over loadedasitwascarryingmorethat 8personsICcontendedthat thereisbreachofpolicywhetherICcanbeheldliable?heldyes as IChasfailedtoshowthatcarryingmorenumberofcoolies
wouldbetreatedasbreachofpolicy ifatallthereisanybreach of policy, it is not so fundamental as to put end to the contract totallyICisboundtosatisfythehighestsixawardsofcoolies 2012ACJ287 127OrderofinvestmentbytheTribunalafterpassingtheaward Tribunalcannotmechanicallypasstheorderofinvestmentincases otherthanminors,illiterateandwidows. 2012(1)GLH442A.V .Padma. 128U/s163AWhethertheICisrequiredtobeexoneratedina case where IC hasfailed to prove and point out that deceased himself was negligent Held No IC held liable. 2012 SC 797 Sinitha'scase. 129 Whether IC is liable in a case where passenger were travelling as gratuitous passengers in the private car which is havingpackagepolicyheldYes 2012ACJ326 130 Receipt of income in foreign currency amount of compensation is required to be awarded at prevalent rate of conversion2012ACJ349 131U/s163AdeceasedsteppedintotheshoesoftheownerIC heldnotliable2012ACJ391 132Dismissalofclaimpetitiononthegroundthatclaimantshave not proved the accident by examining the doctor who had conductedPMVail?NoIsthedutycastupontheTribunaltoissue noticeupontheDoctorandIO,beforedecidingthepetition.Ifthe
counselfor the claimanthasfailedtoperformhisduty,claimant cannotbemadetosuffer. 2012ACJ1046(Kar) 133U/s163AprocedureandpowersofTribunalTribunalneed not to go into the negligence part SC decisions referred to Guidelinesissued 2012ACJ1065(Ker) 134U/s168compensation apportionmentwidow,fatherand motherapportionmentmadeintheratioof2:1:1 deceasedwas agedabout33yearsTribunalawardedmultiplierof14contention thatfatherand mother(agedabove65years)wouldentitledfor multiplierof7onlyinthatviewofthematter,apportionmentis heldtobevalidandproper. 2012ACJ1093(Ker) 135 Composite negligence nonjoinder of joint tortfeasor accidentoccurredbetweentwovehiclesclaimantimpleadedonly onevehicleeffectofwhetherthetortfeasorimpleadedcanseek exclusionofliabilityonthegroundthatothertortfeasorhasnot beenjoined?HeldNoThirdpartyhasachoiceofactionagainst any of the tortfeasor but in such situation, Tribunal's is duty boundtoeitherdirecttheclaimanttojointheothertortfeasoror passtheawardagainsttheimpleadedtortfeasor,leavingitopenfor him to take independent action against other tortfeasor for apportionmentandrecovery. 2012ACJ1103(P&H) 136Accidentinsurance damagetothevehicle transferofthe
vehicleliabilityoftheICTransfereenevergotpolicytransferred inhisnameTransfereecontendedthattransferofownershiptakes placebydeliveryofgoodsandbypassingofconsiderationunder theSaleofGoodsActu/s50oftheMVAct,transferofregistration isrequiredHeldtransferofvehicleisdifferentfromtransferof registrationofvehicleRighttoenforceanobligationunderthe policyagainstICcouldariseforthetransfereeonlybyobtaininga transfer of policy failure to obtain a transfer of policy may not affecttherightofthirdpartyundertheActbutwillhavebearingon therightofthetransfereehimselfclaimbytransfereefordamage tohisvehicleis maintainable againsttheIC,withoutgettingthe policytransferredinhisnameisnotmaintainable. 2012ACJ1110(P&H) 137 Quantum Medical Policy whether amount received under themedicalpolicyisdeductiblefromtheamountofcompensation? HeldNo.SCdecisionsreferred. 2012ACJ1114(Ker)Familypensionisalsolikewise2012ACJ 1197(Bom) 138 U/s 163A deceased died due to heart attack whether claimantsareentitledforcompensationu/s163AoftheMVAct? HeldNoinabsenceofanyevidencetotheeffectthatdeceased diedduetoheavyburdenorthereanyothersustainableground 2012ACJ1134(AP)Murder2012ACJ(Ker) 139 Income Tax Deduction from the amount of compensation interest received on the awarded amount of compensation, amountingtomorethan50,000/Tribunalcandeduct TDSonthe
said amount of accumulated interest? Held No Tribunal can deduct TDS only if the amount of interest for the financial year payabletoeachclaimantexceedsRs.50000/2012ACJ1157(MP) 140u/s163AMinorgirltravellingintheAutoRickshaw,received injuriesfromthe bottlethrownfromtheothervehicle whether claimpetitionu/s163Aismaintainableinsuchcase?HeldYes 2012ACJ1162(Ker) 141 U/s 147(1) and 2 (34) public place and land abutting publicroadwhetherthelandabuttingpublicroadtowhichpublic hasfreeandeasyaccessisapublicplace,irrespectiveofthefact thatitstoodrecordedinthenameofaprivateindividualHeldYes SCdecisionsreferredto 2012ACJ1175(Ori) 142 Intentional murder by use of Motor Vehicle Whether the claimpetitionismaintainable?HeldNoSCdecisionsreferredto. 2012ACJ1188(Chht) 143claimantsareentitledforentirepaypackage,whichisforthe benefitofthefamilyistobetakenintoconsideration. 2008ACJ614(SC)IndiraSrivastava 2009ACJ2161(SC)Saroj 144Meaningof legalrepresentative isgivenu/s2(11)ofCPC words used u/s 166 of MV Act are legal representative and not Dependants therefore, includes earning wife and parents also furtherheldthatwifeisentitledforcompensation,tillthedateof herremarriage. 2012ACJ1230(Mad)consideredratiosofSC,reportedin1989
(2)SCC(Supp)275Bancov/sNaliniBaiNaiqueand1987ACJ 561(SC)GSRTSv/sRamanbhaiPrabhatbhai2013ACJ99(AP) 145U/s163Awhetherthecompensationhastobeawardedu/s 163Aithastobeasperthestructureformulagivenunderthe SecondSchedule?HeldYesthebenefitoffillingapetitiononno faultliabilitycanbeclaimedonthebasisofincomewithacapof Rs.40000/ 2012ACJ1251(Del)variousSCdecisionsareconsidered. 146 Dismiss for Default DD whether claim petition preferred undertheMVActcanbedismissedfordefaultaftertheframingthe issues?HeldNoTribunalisrequiredtodecidethecaseonmerits. 2012ACJ1261(Guj)BharatbhaiChaudharyv/sMalekRafik 147Isitincumbentupontheclaimantstoprovenegligenceof the offending vehicle? Held Yes if they fail to do so, claim petitionpreferredu/s166cannotbeallowed. 2012ACJ1305(SC)SurendraKumarArorav/sDr.ManojBisla 148 Dishonour of cheque given for payment of premium of policyICcancelledthepolicyafterthedateofaccidentliability ofICHeldICliabletosatisfytheawardpassedbytheTribunalIC may prosecute its remedy to recover the amount paid to the claimantsfromtheinsurer. 2012ACJ1307(SC)UIICv/sLaxmamma. 149 U/s 149(2) (a) (ii) and 149 (4) driving licence policy willfulbreachburdenofproofonwhomHeldonIC itisfor theICtoprovethatdriverdidnotholdtheDLtodrivetheclassof vehicleorDLwasfakeandbreachwasconsciousandwillfulonthe
partofinsuredtoavoiditsliability. 2012ACJ1268(Del).VariousSCdecisionsreferredto. 150 Compassionate appointment given to widow whether Tribunalcandeductdependencybenefitonthatcount?HeldNo. 2012(2)GLH246.GirishbhaiDevjibhai,2012AAC3065(All) SCjudgmentsfollowed.2013ACJ129(P&H). 151 Earlier direction of High Court to disposed of application preferred u/s166 oftheAct,whiledecidinganappealpreferred againsttheorderpassed u/s163A oftheAct.Heldsimultaneous petitionsu/s166and163Aarenotmaintainable. 2012(2)GLH325RavindraSenghani 152u/s147(1)InsuranceAct u/s64VB ICtriedtoavoidits liabilityonthegroundthatpolicehasnotcomeintoexistenceas verificationofvehiclewasnotdonewhethersustainableHeld Nooncepremiumispaid,ICcannotavoiditsliability2012ACJ 1322 153 u/s 163A accident between scooter and car scooter belongedtothebrotherofclaimantwhetherclaimantisentitled forcompensationu/s163A?HeldNo Asclaimanthasstepped into the sue of owner IC cannot be held liable Sc judgments followed 2012ACJ1329(P&H) 154ItisthecaseoftheICthat truckwasstanding andatthat point,jeepdashedintherearportionoftheTruckandtherefore,it isnotliablewhethersustainable?HeldNoEvenifitispresumed thattruckwasstationary,ICoftruckisliableas driverofthetruck
is held negligent to the extent of 25% various SC judgments followed. 2012ACJ1390(Raj) 155 Tractortrailer TractortrolleyworkersustainedinjuriesIC seekstoavoiditsliabilityonthegroundthatpolicydoesnotcover risk of owner and labourers whether sustainable Held No Section2(44)and2(46)indicatesthatwhentrailerisattached totractor,itbecomesgoodsvehicleandtherefore,ICisliable. 2012ACJ1408(Kar),2012ACJ2737(All)SCjudgementsfollowed 156 Whether the dependents of agriculturist is entitled for prospectiveincomeHeldYes 2012ACJ1428(SC)SantoshDevi 157WhetherPMreportismusttoproveaccidentHeldNo. 2012ACJ1434(Ori)RelevantonpageNo.1439,para1.5 158 Accident occurred in Nepal while deceased was on pilgrimage Journey started from India Opponents are Indian citizensandhavingofficesinIndiaWhetherclaimpetitioninIndia ismaintainableHeldYes2012ACJ1452((P&H) 159LeginjuriesresultedinfractureDoctoraccessdisablement as2025%byobservingthatthereisdeficiencyinthemusclesame was notbelievedbythelowerCourts byholdingthatsamedid notresultintopermanentdisablementSCoverruledthesame 2012ACJ1459(SC)ManojRathod 160 Burden of proof on IC IC contended that driver of offendingvehicledidnotpossessvalidlicenceICdidnotissued anynoticetoowner,drivertoproduceDLnormadeanyapplication
toissuesummonstoRTofficer 2012ACJ1484((MP) 161 Cover Note IC did not produced any ledger or other evidencetoprovethatonthedateofaccident premiumwasnot paidWhetherICisliableHeldYes 2012ACJ1497(MP) 162 MurderApplicationu/s 163Awhethermaintainable?Held yes. 2012ACJ1512(Ker) 163 Whether the owner of goods who were returning after unloading the goods at proper destination can be termed as gratuitouspassengers?HeldNo. 2012ACJ1522, 2012ACJ1641( beforeloading, goodsvehicle metwithaccidentICheldliable) 164 DrivinglicenceDL expired beforethedateofaccidentand renewedthereafterclausein policeprovidesthatapersonwho holdsorhasheld andnotbeendisqualifiedfromholdingan effectivedrivinglicenceisentitledtodrivevehicle whetherICis liableinsuchcaseHeldyes2012ACJ1566(P&H) 165Jurisdictionofpermanent LokAdalatguideline.2012ACJ 1608 166WhetherTribunalcandismissanapplicationpreferredu/O26 Rule 4 and Order 16 Rule 19 for taking evidence by Court Commissioner?HeldNo2012ACJ1623(Chh) 167 Pay and recover order by Tribunal when deceased was admittedly a gratuitous passengerwhethervalid Held yes as
gratuitouspassengerisheldtothirdparty.2012ACJ1661(J&K) 168U/s163Awhetheraclaimpetitionismaintainablewhenthe incomeofdeceasedismorethan40,000/perannum?HeldNo. 2012ACJ1687 169 Mudguard of tractor Tractor was meant for agricultural purposeadmittedlyitwasnotusedforagriculturalpurposewhen accidentoccurredwhetherICisliable?heldNo. 2012ACJ1738 170Doctorscannotbecalledtoprovedocumentswithrespectto prolongedtreatmentunlesstheycreatedoubt 2012ACJ1847 171 Private car policy gratuitous passengers whether IC is laible?Heldno.2012ACJ1880 172 Managing Trustee died in the accident Vehicle was registeredinhisnamewhetherhecanbeheldasowner?Held No. 2012ACJ1886 173DLdriverwasnotholdingvalidDL atthetimeofaccident ownernotexamined byICWhetherICcanbeheldliableHeld yes.SwaranSinghfollowed. 2012ACJ1891,2012ACJ1946 174 U/s 163A Claim petition under 163A is maintainable againstothervehicle,whichwasnotatfault?HeldYes. 2012ACJ1896SCjudgementsfollowed 175Negligence contributorynegligenceclaimanttravellingon
rooftop such travelling by claimant is negligent but unless negligent act contributes to the accident claimant cannot be heldnegligent. 2012ACJ1968. 176 Whether claimant can convert an application u/s 166 to 163A and vise versa? Held yes SC judgements followed 2011 ACJ721 2012ACJ1986 177Resjudicataapplicablewhenanorderpassedu/s140ofthe ActhasattainedfinalityineyesofLaw 2012(2)GLH465SiddikU.Solanki. 178 Compensation determination of death of the owner of transportcompanywasmanagingthecompany canbemanaged by the manager in fact, manager was appointed and paid Rs.10,000SCawardedcompensationonthatbasis andnoton thebasisofactualincomeofthedeceased. 2012(3)SCC613YogeshDevi. 179 U/s 163A whether driver of the offending vehicle is requiredtobejoined?HeldNotnecessary. 2012AAC2495(Del) 180 Collision between Tanker and Jeep rash and negligent driving of tanker owneranddriverofjeep not joinedwhether claimpetitioncanbedismissedonthatground?HeldNoowner anddriverofjeepnotnecessaryparty. 2012AAC2479(All) 181 TractortrolleyWhentrolleyisattachedwiththetractoris
onevehicle 2012ACJ2022and2117(CHH) 183ICsoughttoavoiditsliabilityonthegroundthatdriverwas notholding validlicenceifthelicenceofthedriverhadlapsed thatitselfisnotaproofthathewasdisqualifiedfromdrivingor he was debarred from driving said vehicle IC held liable SC judgmentfollowed. 2012ACJ2025(KAN) 184 Doctrine of election whether claimant can claim compensation u/s 168 of the Act when he has already received someamountundertheWCAct?HeldNo. 2012ACJ2069Scjudgmentfollowed. 185 SC granted 100% increase in the actual income of the deceased and deducted only 1/10 amount as personal expenditure. 2012ACJ2131(SC)N.I.A.Com.v/sDipali. 186 Registrationnumberofoffendingvehiclenotdisclosedat thetimeoffillingofFIRdriverofoffendingvehicle,convictedby criminalcourtvehiclenumber,disclosedafterwardsdoesnotlead to the conclusion that there is collusion between claimant and driverofoffendingvehicle. 2012ACJ2176(Del) 187 U/s163Acollisionbetweentwovehicles jointtortfeasor whetherthetortfeasorisentitledtogetamountofcompensation? HeldYes.
2012ACJ2206(Ker)2004ACJDeepalG.Soni(SC),reliedupon. 188Vehiclewhichmetwithanaccidentissoldofbytheownerin favourofthirdpartyinsuchcasewhoisliabletopayamountof compensation? Held registered owner remains owner for the purposeofM.V .Act,eventhoughundercivillawheceasedtobethe owner after the sale insuchsituation, both thepersonsnamely current and old owners,bothare held liable to payamount of compassion. 2012ACJ2269(Del)2012ACJ2319(P&H) 2011ACJ705=AIR 2011SC682,Pushpav/sShakuntala,reliedupon. Butalsosee2006ACJ1441(SC)TilakSingh 188 Central M.V . Rules, 1989, Rule41 motor vehicle trade certificatewhencanbeuse?Helditcouldnotbeusedforpurpose otherthanthosementionedu/r41oftheRulesandforcarrying passengers. 2012ACJ2285(Kar) 189U/s163AWhetherTribunalcanawardhigheramountthan whatisbeenprovidedundertheSecondSchedule?HeldYes. 2012ACJ2292(Kar)2008ACJ2148(SC),Sapnav/sUIICom. 190 Whetheraclaimpetitionu/s163Aismaintainablewhen awardisalreadypassedu/s161oftheAct?HeldYes. 2012ACJ2314(Chh). 191M.V .ActC.P .C.1908,u/s2 illegitimateminorsonisentitled togetanyamountofcompensation?HeldYes. 2012ACJ2322(Chh). 192 Pedestrianundertheinfluenceofliquor hitbytruckfrom
behind whether such pedestrian can he held liable for such accidentHeldNo. 2012ACJ2358(MP). 193 Claim petition u/s 163A for the death of the owner is maintainable? Held Noclaimants cannotbeboth i.eowner andclaimant. 2012ACJ2400(MP).2008ACJ1441RajniDeviand2009ACJ 2020Ningamma(bothSCfollowed) 194 Goods Vehicle gratuitous passenger liability of insurance companyHeldNo. 2012ACJ2419(ChauhanJadugar). 195Useofvehicle liveelectricitywiredrivercameincontact withitdiedwhetherclaimpetitionismaintainable?HeldYes. 2012ACJ(AP).SCjudgmentsreliedupon. 196ActPolicyprivatevehicleliabilityofinsurancecompanyno evidenceproducedbyICtoavoiditsliability.Deceasedcannotbe said that they were gratuitous passenger when they were travellinginprivatecar. 2012ACJ2451(Ori). 197 Deceased boarded in wrong rout bus asked conductor to stopthebusbeforethebuswasstoppedhejumpedfromthebus anddiedwhethersuchpersoncanbesaidtobeT.P?HeldYes 212AAC2584(Del) 198Conversionofanapplicationpreferredu/s166tooneunder 163A whether court can go into the legality and correctness of
pleadingsatsuchstage?HeldNo. 2012AAC2610(Del)2012ACJ2482(P&H) 199 Nonpossessionofvalidlicence byscooterrider,cannotbe heldtohavecontributedtoaccidentwhenIChasfailedtoexamine thedriverofoffendingvehicle. 2012ACC2635(Del)and2012AAC2895(Mad)SCjudgments followed. 200 Production of fake licence bydriverownerverifieditand founditgenuinewhetherinsuchcase,ICcanavoiditsliability heldNo. 2012AAC2636(Del) 201 NegligenceFindingwithrespecttonegligencewhethercan bearrivedatonthebasisoffillingofFIRandChargesheet?Held No. 2012 AAC 2701 (Del) and 2012AAC 2934 (MP) SC judgments followed. 202S.166,S.163AMOTORVEHICLESClaimforcompensation Remedyu/s. 163AandS.166beingfinalandindependentof eachother,claimantcannotpursuethemsimultaneously Claim petition finally determined under S. 163A Claimant would be precludedfromproceedingfurtherwithpetitionfiledunderS.166. 2011SC1138DhanjibhaiKGadhvi. 203 The law laid down in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna RamchandraNayan(1977)2SCC441:(AIR1977SC1248)was acceptedbythelegislaturewhileenactingtheMotorVehiclesAct, 1988 by introducing Section 163A of the Act providing for
payment of compensation notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in any otherlawforthe time beinginforce that the ownerofamotorvehicleortheauthorisedinsurershallbeliableto payinthecaseofdeathorpermanentdisablementduetoaccident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, compensation, as indicatedintheSecondSchedule,tothelegalheirsorthevictim,as the case may be, and in a claim made under subsection (1) of Section163AoftheAct,theclaimantshallnotberequiredtoplead orestablishthatthedeathorpermanentdisablementinrespectof whichtheclaimhasbeenmadewasduetoanywrongfulactor neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. in the judgments of threeJudge Bench in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna RamchandraNayan(1977)2SCC441:(AIR1977SC1248) 204 In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High CourtinMuljibhalAjarambhaiHarijan v.UnitedIndiaInsurance Co. Ltd., 1982 (1) 23 GLR 756, Supreme Court offered the followingguidelines "(i)TheClaimsTribunalshould,inthecaseofminors,invariably ordertheamountofcompensationawardedtotheminorinvested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attainingmajority.Theexpensesincurredbytheguardianornext friendmayhoweverbeallowedtobewithdrawn; (ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal shouldfollowtheproceduresetoutin(1)above,butiflumpsum payment is required for effecting purchases of any movable or immovable property, such as, agricultural implements, rickshaw
etc.,toearnaliving,theTribunalmayconsidersucharequestafter makingsurethattheamountisactuallyspentforthepurposeand thedemandisnotarougetowithdrawmoney; (iii) In the case of semiliterate persons the Tribunal should ordinarilyresorttotheproceduresetoutat(i)aboveunlessitis satisfied,forreasonstobestatedinwriting,thatthewholeorpart oftheamountisrequiredforexpandingandexistingbusinessorfor purchasingsomepropertyasmentionedin(ii)aboveforearninghis livelihood,inwhichcasetheTribunalwillensurethattheamountis investedforthepurposeforwhichitisdemandedandpaid; (iv)InthecaseofliteratepersonsalsotheTribunalmayresortto theprocedureindicatedin(1)above,subjecttotherelaxationset out in (ii) and (iii) above, if having regard to the age, fiscal backgroundandstrataofsocietytowhichtheclaimantbelongsand suchotherconsiderations,theTribunalinthelargerinterestofthe claimant and with a view to ensuring the safety of the compensationawardedtohimthinksitnecessarytodoorder; (v) In the case of widows the Claims Tribunal should invariably followtheproceduresetoutin(i)above; (vi)Inpersonalinjurycasesiffurthertreatmentisnecessarythe ClaimsTribunalonbeingsatisfiedaboutthesame,whichshallbe recorded in writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is necessaryforincurringtheexpensesforsuchtreatment; (vii)InallcasesinwhichInvestmentinlongtermfixeddepositsis madeitshouldbeonconditionthattheBankwillnotpermitany loanoradvanceonthefixeddepositandinterestontheamount
investedispaidmonthlydirectlytotheclaimantorhisguardian,as thecasemaybe; (viii)InallcasesTribunalshouldgranttotheclaimantslibertyto applyforwithdrawalincaseofanemergency.Tomeetwithsucha contingency, if the amount awarded is substantial, the Claims Tribunalmay invest itinmorethanoneFixedDepositsothatif needbeonesuchF.D.R.canbeliquidated." TheseguidelinesshouldbeborneinmindbytheTribunalsinthe casesofcompensationinaccidentcases. AIR1994SC1631Mrs.SusammaThomas. 205 No proof of income In such case, compensation should be assessedonthebasisofminimumwagespayableatrelevanttime. 2012ACJ28(SC)GovindYadav. 206IdentificationofvehicleInFIR,offendingvehicleisdescribed as Blue Colour bike whereas driverowner sought to avoid its liability on the count that bike was of Red Colour whether sustainable?HeldNo.SCJudgmentsfollowed. 2012ACJ2529(MAD). 207 Helper Act Policy whether, helper can be treated as passenger?HeldNo.SCjudgmentfollowed. 2012ACJ2554(GAU). 208 Legal representative live in relationship second wife whethersheisentitledforcompensation,whenfirstwifeisliving? HeldYes. 2012ACJ2586(AP). 2011(1)SCC141(liveininrelationship u/s125oftheCr.P .C.Manisliabletopaymaintenance).
2007(7)SCJ467HafizunBegumv/sMd.IkramHeque. 209 NonjoinderofdriverICdidnotagitatedthesameduring trial,thoughpleaofnonjoinderwastakeninWSWhether,such plea can be allowedto be raisedat the time offinalhearingor appeal?HeldNo. 2012ACJ2647.SCjudgmentsfollowed. 210 InterestPenalinterestwhetherimpositionof higherrate interestwithretrospectiveeffectislegal?HeldNo.Ifawarded amountisnotdepositedwithintimeallowed,reasonableenhanced rateofinterestmaybeimposed,payablefromthedatetillthedate ofpaymentbutnotretrospectively. 2012ACJ2660.SCJudgmentsfollowed. 212 Pedestrian hit by truck which had 'Act Policy' TP risk tribunaldirectedICtopayonly1.5lacandremainingamountof compensation was directed to be paid by ownerdriver Whether sustainable?HeldNo.Since,higherpremiumhadbeenpaidfor 'liabilitytopublicriski.e.thirdpart Thoughitwas'ActPolicy',IC isheldliabletopayamountofcompensation. 2012ACJ2667SCJudgmentsfollowed. 213 Two pillion rideroffendingtractordashedwithsaidbike Riderofbikecouldnotseethetractorassamewasnothavinghead lights Tribunal exonerated rider of bike whether sustainable? HeldYesOnlybecauseriderofbikehadallowed,twopillionrider totravelonthebikedoesnotleadtoinferthatriderofbikehad contributedincausingtheaccident. 2012ACJ2678(MP)2008ACJ393(MP).
214Buscameincontactwith livewireClaimantdiedbecauseof electrocutionwhetherICisliable?Heldyes SCjudgmentfollowed.2012AAC2886. 215Inaccidentvehiclegotdamagedclaimpetitionfiledagainst one of the IC claim petition, partly allowed claimant preferred another application against another ICwhethermaintainable? HeldNo. 2012AAC2944(Chh)SCjudgmentsfollowed. 216 Jurisdiction Damage to property of owner whether maintainable?HeldNotribunalhasjurisdictiontoentertainonly those applications wherein damage is caused to property of the thirdparty.2005ACJ(SC)1,Dhanrajv/sN.I.A.Comisreliedupon. 2012ACJ2737. 217Futureincomeinthecasethecasewhereageofdeceasedis morethan50?whethercanbeconsidered?Heldyesbutonlyin exceptionalcases. K.R.Madhusudhan v/sAdministrativeOfficer, 2011ACJ743 218 DLFakeDLICadducednoevidencetoprovethatinsured committedwillfuldefaultofIPwhetherICcanseektoavoidits liabilityheldNo. SwaranSingh isfollowedCopyisavailablein thefolder. 2012ACJ2797. 219Amedmentinclaimpetitionpreferredu/s163Awhethercan beallowedHeldYes 2012ACJ2809 220Jurisdictionafterthedeathoftheherhusband,deceasedwas
stayingwithherbrotherwhetherclaimpetitioncanbepreferredat theplacewheresheisstayingwithherbrother?heldYes. 2012ACJ2811 221 Deceaseddiedbecausehewascrushedby concretepillar, which fell no him as it was dashed by the offending vehicle Whether IC of offending vehicle liable to pay compensation ? HeldYes. 2012AAC3124. 222 Loss of academic year what should be amount of compensationHeldRs.50,000/.2012AAC3126. 223 Liability of IC in tariff, under 'Limits of Liability' it is mentioned 'AsrequiredbyLaw' andnot 'ActPolicy' words explained. In such situation, IC is liable to pay awarded by the Tribunal. 2012AAC3136. 224U/s147PayandrecoverorderGoodOrderInternet. 2012 AAC3151(ALLAHBAD).N.I.Co.,Varanasiv.s.Smt.Abhirajji Devi. 225DLICfailedtoprovethatdrivernothavingvalidlicence ICheldliabletopay. 2012AAC3206. 226 Vehiclewasinsuredbutnothaving validpermitbreachof policyorderofpayandrecoverpassed. 2012AAC3234. 227LiabilityofICtoavoidliability,IChadtoprovethatownerof thevehicleknewthatdriverwasnothavingvaliddrivinglicence
DriverwashavinglicencetoplyLMV ,MGVandHGVICdidnotled any evidence to prove that owner knew about driver being incompetenttoplypassengervehicle. 2012AAC3302(J&K)N.I.Com.v/sMst.Bakhta. 228DelayinfillingofFIRWhetheronthatcount,claimpetition canbedismissedHeldNo.Delayitselfisnotsufficienttohold thatclaimpetitionisbogus. 2012AAC3334.U.I.I.Com.v/sN.Srinivas. 229 Fake DL report of Transport Authority wasnot proved in accordancewithlawandexcludedfromevidenceorderofpayand recoverpassed. 2012AAC3344(Del),BeerPalv/sArvindKumar.2012AAC3366 (Del),O.I.Com.v/sPritamKumarBurman. 230 Act policy Goods vehicle Whether IC is liable to pay compensationtotheemployeesofthehirer?HeldNoICisliable topaycompensationonlytotheemployeesofowners. 2013ACJ1SanjeevSamrat. 231OwnerofthebusgavethesameonhiretotheCorporation alongwithpolicybusdashedwithtwowheelerwhetherICcan avoiditsliabilityheldNowhenvehiclewasgivenonhirewithits existingpolicy,ICcannotavoiditsliability. 2013ACJ10(Mad) 214Deathofmotherduringpendencyofclaimpetition father of the deceased not considered as dependent whether proper? HeldNoclaimpetitionoughttohavebeendecidedonthebasis thatmotherofthedeceasedwasaliveonthedateofaccident,as
righttosueaccruedondateofaccident. 2013ACJ19(Del) 215Publicplaceagriculturefieldispublicplace?HeldYes 2013ACJ30(AP) 215Stationaryvehicleparkedinthemiddleoftheroadwithout headlightsorindicationlightdeceaseddiedashedashedonthe rear portion of the said stationary vehicle whether IC of said vehiclecanavoiditsliability?HeldNo. 2013ACJ56(Del) 216Bestexampleofthecasewhereinjuredwasa government servant andmetwithaccidentbutbecauseofaccidenthedidnot suffer any salary loss good observations of House of Lords, reportedin1912AC496. 2013ACJ79para20. 217 Whether the driver of the offending vehicle is required to joinedas party opponent ineachcase?Held Noinabsence of nonjoinder of driver, entire proceeding shall not vitiated, as ownerofthevehicleisjoined. 2008 ACJ 1964 Machindranath Kernath v/s D.S. Mylarappa. 2013ACJ109(Bom) 218MOTORVEHICLESLiabilityofinsurerDeceaseddiedin miniautoaccidentDriverofoffendingvehiclehadlicencetodrive light motor vehicle/LMV and not transport vehicle Breach of conditionofinsuranceapparentonfaceofrecordFindingoffact arrivedatthatvehicleinquestionwasnotprovedtobeagoods vehicleisnotcorrectasdrivinglicencehadbeengrantedforperiod
of 20 years and not for period of 3 years Insurer therefore directed to deposit compensation amount with liberty to recover samefromowneranddriverofvehicle. 2009SC2151AngadKol 219 unknown vehiclewhether claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable?Heldyes. 2013ACJ290(Del) 220 Privatevehicle/car packagepolicywhetheroccupantsof thesaidvehiclebetreatedasTP?WhetherICcanbeheldliableto paycompensationtosuchoccupants?Heldyes. 2013 ACJ321 (SC)O.I.Com.v/sSurendraNathLoomba.Also see,Blalakrishanjudgment. 221Driverownerheldresponsibleforcausingtheaccidentother vehicle which dashed with the vehicle of driverowner, did not havevalidandeffectivepolicy Tribunaljointlyhelddriverowner anddriveroftheothervehicleresponsibleinthesaidaccidentand directedtheICofthedriverownertopaycompensationwhether sustainableHeldNoAspolicycoversonlyTPandnotowner. 2013ACJ393(Cal)SCjudgmentsfollowed. 222Conductor'slicenceconductorsustaininjurieswhilehiswas in the bus and working as conductor conductor's licence had expired and not renewed liability of IC IC cannot be held responsible. 2013ACJ397(Kar)SCjudgmentsfollowed. 223 Medical negligence sterilization operation failure of liabilityofState.
2013ACJ406(HP) 224deathofhousewifequantumshouldbedecidedonthebasis ofnotionalincomei.e.3,000/p.m.1/3amountisnotrequiredto bedeductedasnotionalincomeisassessed. 2013ACJ453(Del)SCjudgmentsfollowed. 225M.V .ActdutyofadvocatesGuidelinesGoodjudgement. 2013ACJ474.Copiedfrominternet. 226AllowanceslikeD.A.,contributionofemployertowardsP .Fetc arepartandparceloftheincomeofdeceased?heldyes. 2013ACJ504(Del). 227licenceendorsementonlicenceSpecificendorsementtoply atransportvehicleisnecessary. 2013ACJ487&668IMPReliedon2006ACJ1336KusumRai, 2008ACJ627N.I.A.Co.v/sPrabhulal,2008ACJ721,N.I.Com. v/sAnnappaIrappaNesaria(whereinitisheldthatendorsementis requiredfrom28.03.2001),2009ACJ1141, O.I.Com.v/sAngad Kol (wherein it is held that for non passenger/ non transport vehicles, licences are issued for 20 years whereas for passengers vehiclestheyareissuedfor3yearsonly). 228 Whether the order of pay and recover can be passed by Tribunal,whenthereisdisputewithrespectto endorsementinthe licence?HeldYes2013ACJ487,atpageNo.591(para.17). 229TowingofvehicleRickshawwasbeingtownbyandjeepand truck dashed with rickshaw whether jeep driver can be held liable?HeldYes 2013ACJ595
230Endorsementonlicencedefenceofwhethercanbeallowed atthestageof140?HeldNo. 2013ACJ598. 231 Contributory negligence Child Child cannot be held negligentintheaccident. 2013ACJ673 232W.C.ActEmployersuomotupaidcompensationtotheL.Rof deceasedu/s8oftheW.C.Act.claimpetitionpreferredearlierby the L.R. Of deceased whether I.C. Can claim that amount paid under the W.C. Act may be deducted from the amount of compensationwhichmaybeawardedu/s1667168ofM.V .Act? Held No. Since compensation is paid u/s 8 of the W.C. Act, Section8andL.R.Ofdeceasedhadnotpreferredanyapplication u/s10oftheW.C.Act,argumentofI.C.Isturneddown. 2013ACJ709. 233 U/s 166(2) jurisdiction of Tribunal Claimant migrant labourerAppealbyinsurerAwardamountnotdisputedSetting asideofawardongroundoflackofterritorialjurisdictionWould only result in retrial before appropriate Tribunal S.C. would exercisepowersunderArt.142todocompletejusticeinsuchacase. AIR2009SC1022MantooSarkarv/sO.I.Com.Ltd. 234JurisdictionofClaimsTribunal Claimforlossofbusiness incomeduetononuseofvehicle Fallsunderheaddamageto propertyClaimsTribunalwouldhavejurisdictiontoentertainand decidesuchclaim. AIR2007Guj39.
235InthedecisionrenderedbytheDivisionBenchofthisCourtin thecaseofLICv.L.R.ofdeceasedNaranbhai,reportedin 1972GLR 920,itisheldthattheamountsreceivedbytheclaimantonaccount oftheinsurancetakenbyhimforhisownbenefitandwithhisown money, is a collateral benefit and such benefit could not be deductedfromthecompensationamount.ThecoordinateBenchof this Court in a case viz. Dayaljibhai Manibhai Patel v. Erachsha DhanjishaVariyavainFirstAppealNo.402of1986hasdecidedon 28thJuly,2006,hadtakenasameview. 236'PayandRecover'WhetherTribunalcandirecttheICtofirst payandthenrecovertheamountofcompensation?HeldNo O.I.Com.v/sK.C.Subramanayam,reportedinCDJ2012Karnataka HC339. 237 Constructive Res judicata 237 Whether order passed u/s 140 of the Act, qua negligence of the driver is binding to the tribunalasConstructiveResjudicata,whiledecidingthetheclaim petitionu/s166oftheAct?HeldYes. F.A. No. 264 of 2005 dated 15/02/2013, Minor Siddharth Makranbhai. 238 Governmentservantinjurycasewhatshouldbethebasis forcomputationofamountofcompensation?Whethermultiplier of5wouldbeappliedor25%incomeshouldbeconsidered?Two Views First says that multiplier of 5 would be applicable DahyabhaiParmarv/sRamavtarsharam,reportedin2006(4)GLR 2844 and case reported in 1993 (2) GLR 1046 whereas second view says that 25% of the salary income should be considered
MohanbhaiGemabhaiv/s.BalubhaiSavjibhai,reportedin1993(1) GLR249and2013ACJ79para20. 239 Jeep SeizedforallegedviolationofNDPSAct Whilejeep was being taken for production during transit jeep capsized whether owner can be held liable? Held No As owner had no controloverthejeep. 2013ACJ721(Ker)SCjudgmentfollowed. 240ValidpermitICsoughtoavoiditsliabilityonthegroundthat termsandconditionsofthepolicyisviolatedWhethersustainable HeldNo 2013ACJ788 241 Employee insured under the ESI Scheme Whether claim petitionundertheM.V .ActorW.C.Actismaintainable?HeldNo. 2013ACJ865 But claim petition is maintainable when it is not filed against employer. ESI Act does not bar right to claim compensation againstthirdpartyundertheMVAct. 2013ACJ1581 242 Two Accident in first accident, deceased sustained serious injuriesandwhilehewasbeingtakentothehospitalfortreatment, second accident occurred both the vehicles held liable in the accident.
160
2013ACJ896. 243 Apportionment of inter se liability whether tribunal was justifiedinapportioningtheliabilitybetweenthejointtortfeasor? HeldNo. 2013CJ926&976 245Apportionmentofinterseliabilityinanorderpassedu/s140 of the Act whether tribunal was justified in apportioning the liabilitybetweenthejointtortfeasor?HeldNo. 2013ACJ959. 246 Tractortrailer Tractortrolley Goods vehicle Additional premiumof7passengerspaidunderthe workmencompensation actemployeeofhirersustainedinjuriesICdisputeditsliability Policy covers vehicle as well as the employees engaged for its operationUnderthissituation,ICheldliabletopayamountof compensation. 2013ACJ994. 247 Route permit Breach of policy When there is breach of policy,ICisnotliabletopayamountofcompensation. 2013ACJ1008. 248 Goods vehicle Cleaner sustained injuries he filed claim petitionundertheM.V .Actwhether,ICisliable?HeldYesbut onlytoanextentofamountofcompensationadmissibleunderthe
W.C.Act. 2013ACJ1025. 249 Negligence Conviction in the criminal Court whether findingsoftheCriminalCourtisbindingontheClaimsTribunal HeldNo. 2013ACJ1042. 250Deathofhelperexcavatordashedwiththepillarandhelper diedbecause,pillarfellonthehelperICsoughttoavoiditsliability on the ground that helper is the employee of the hirer and therefore, IC isnotliableWhethersustainableheldNoAs deceasedwasnothiredonvehicleneitherhewastravellinginthe saidvehicle. 2013ACJ1049. 251Travellingontherooftopwhetheritisacaseofcontributory negligence?HeldNoaspassengersareatthemercyofthebus operators. 2013ACJ1058
252u/s163A,140&166conversionofanapplicationu/s166 from 163A, after getting an amount under section 140 is permissibleHeldNo. 2013ACJ1082.
253 O6 R17 ICmovedanapplicationforimpleadingdriver, ownerandinsureroftheothervehiclewhether,canbeallowedif claimantdoesnotwantanyreliefagainstthem?HeldNo. 2013ACJ1116,SCjudgmentsfollowed. 254 LMVwhethertractorislightmotorvehicle?Heldyes,as definedu/s2(21)oftheAct. 2013ACJ1160 255Whetheronthebasisof successioncertificate,brother'sson of deceased gets right to file an application under the Act for gettingcompensationHeldNo. 2013ACJ1176(J&K) 256 Whether the disability certificate issued by the private hospitalisadmissibleinviewof Rule10.2ofthe RajasthanM.V . Rules,1990?HeldNo. 2013ACJ1236(Raj) 257 Claim petition for damage to the property death of elephant Tribunal awarded amount of compensation of Rs.5,39,100 including RS.1,20,000 for loss of income from elephantHeldsuchanawardisnotjustifiedwhenclaimpetitionis preferredfordamagetothepropertyRs.1,20,000/reducedbyHC. 2013ACJ1279(Ker) 258DamagetothepropertyTenantfiledclaimpetitionTribunal
dismissed it on the ground that tenant is not the owner and evictionpetitionispendingWhethersustainableHeldNo. 2013ACJ1292(Raj) 259 Contributory Negligent Non possession of driving licence whetherfallsunderit?HeldNoitisnotacaseofcontributory negligence. difference between contributory and composite negligencepointedout. 2013ACJ1297(Pat). 260 Paymentofpremium wasmadeon6.12.2003ICreceived paymentwithouttherebeingalldetailsofthevehicleandissued policyon29.1.2004Accidentoccurredon28.1.2004whetherin suchsituationICcanbeheldliable?HeldYes. 2013ACJ1344(J&K) 261NegligenceWhilereversingthevehicleGuideline. 2013ACJ1357(Chh) 262Claimpetition withdrawn underthebeliefthatasperthe settlementallamountwouldbepaidbutsamewasnotpaidafter the withdrawal of the claim petition. Whether the fresh claim petition isbareaspertheprinciplesoftheresjudicatra?Held No. 2013ACJ1361(Raj) 263Anapplicationu/s140 hastobedecidedasexpeditiouslyas
possibleanorderofhearthesamealongwiththemainclaim petitionisbad. 2013ACJ1371(Bom). 264Deathoftheownerofthejeepinsuchcase,ICisnotliable topaycompensation. 2013ACJ1382.(Del) 265 powerstotakeadditionalevidencewhencanbeallowed Guideline. 2013ACJ1399(P&H) 266 Inthe fatalaccident casesRupeesOnelacmaybegranted undertheheadofconsortiumandlossofestate,eachandRupees 25Kbegivenundertheheadoffuneralexpenditure. Rajeshv/sRajinderSingh2013ACJ1403(SCFB). 267 Mediclaim when certain amount is paid under the mediclaim policy, claimant can claim the said amount the claim petition.HeldNo. 2013ACJ1437(Mad) 268 Though claim did not suffer any financial loss due to vehicular injuries sustained by him, Apex Court has granted compensation undertheheadof 'Loss of Earning Capacity and FutureLossofIncome'.
165
2013ACJ1459(SC)V .Sathuv/sP .Ganapathi(RelieduponAjay Kumarv/sRajKumar) 269 Whether a claim petition preferred u/s 163A of the Act is maintainablewhenpersonriddingamotorcycleborroweditfrom theitsownerHeldNo. 2013ACJ1472SCJudgmentsinthecasesofSadanandMukhi, NingammaandRajniDevifollowed. 270 Death of Agriculturist Determination of compensation Guidelinegiven. 2013ACJ1481 271WhethermerefillingofChargesheetforoffencespunishable u/s3and122oftheActagainstthedriveroftheoffendingvehicle leads totheconclusionthatdriverdidnotpossessalicenceand ownerhasintentionalbreachedthetermsofthePolicy.HeldNo. 2013ACJ1501. 272Claimantsustainedfracturewhenhewastryingtoreplace puncturedtyreandwhenjacksuddenlyslippedandlegofthe claimantiscrushed Claimantpreferredanapplicationu/s163A DismissedbyTribunalbyholdingthataccidenthadnottakenplace during driving of the vehicle. Sustainable Held No. It is not necessary that vehicle should be in running condition when accident occurred. Even if it was stationary, IC is liable to pay compensation.
2013ACJ1561 273 Death of owner of offending vehicle prior to the date of accident whether in such situation, IC is liable to pay compensation/HeldYes. 2013ACJ1576 274 OwnerHirerLease BuseshiredbyCorporationandplied themontheroutesallotedtoCorporation.Injuriesbysuchbuses WhetherICisliableHeldYes. 2013ACJ1593(FB) 275 Unmanned level crossing accident by Train whether Rail authorityisliabletopaycompensationHeldYes. 2013ACJ1653.
167

MACP Referencer Manual

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MACP Referencer Manual

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MOTORACCIDENTCLAIM PETITIONREFERENCE MANUAL

Prepared by Hanif. S. Mulia. hanifkaiz@yahoo.in

MACP Reference Manual

HowtodecideaclaimpetitionwheredefenceofInvalid,Learners 46 Licence&FakeDrivingLicenceandDefenseofQualification/Badge istaken

Whendriveroftheunknownvehiclespedawayaftertheaccident, 68 whetherinsuchsituationclaimpetitionismaintainableinviewof theprovisionscontainedunderSections161&163oftheAct

Whetherallthejointtortfeasorsarerequiredtobejoinedasparty 70 opponentsintheclaimpetition Whetherthepointofnegligenceandliabilityofinsurer,decidedby 72 thecoordinateTribunalisbindingontheothercoordinateTribunal, iftheclaimpetitionhasarisenfromthesameaccident

Standard wordings in respect of the Policy including Premium 90 computationtable,certificateofInsuranceandCoverNote

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

In the said formula, 'A' stands for higher value of partial

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

NONTRAUMATICLESIONS: Scoliosis ThewholeSpinehasbeengivenratingof100%andregionwisethe followingpercentagesaregiven: DorsalSpine50% LumbarSpine30% CervicalSpine20% Kobbsmethodformeasurementofangleofcurveinstandingposition istobeused.Thecurveshavebeendividedintothreesubgroups:

Particulars 30degree (Mild)

Cervical Spine 2.00%

30-60degree 3.00% (Moderate) Above 60degree (Severe) 5.00%

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

begivenatotalof10%additionalweightage. 5.Dominantupperlimbhasbeengiven4%extrapercentage. UpperLimbAmputation:

Permanent Partial Impairment, in % 100 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 30 25

Thumb Disarticulation through 15 inter phalangeal joint or through distal phalanx

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

Rates applicable to Clerical and NonTechnical Supervisory

Graduates and 4393 above

MACP Reference Manual

Government of National Territory of Delhi has revised

No 100 Provision 70 70 70 200-205 205-210 210-220

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

andifitfoundthatsamewasusedforagriculturalpurposeandsameis coveredbythe'FarmerComprehensivePolicy' orthe'FarmerPackage Policy',insuchsituation,insurerisliabletopaycompensation.Ifthe abovereferredtwoconditionsarenotfulfilled,insurercannotbeheld responsibletopayamountofcompensation.

It is also to be notedthat in the Annexure of Indian Motor

MACP Reference Manual

AoftheAct,whetherthedeceasedismarriedornot,unlikeasclaim petitionpreferredu/s166oftheAct,onethird(1/3 rd)amountfromthe actualincomeofthedeceasedshouldbedeductedtowardspersonaland livingexpendituresofthedeceased.

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

87 MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual

MACP Reference Manual