SC Upholds Madras HC Judgment Awarding Just Compensation To Motor Accident Victim
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-10-04 07:36:44
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
The Supreme Court has upheld an order of the Madras High Court that directed the National Insurance Company to pay Rs 1.85cr as accident compensation to the family of a man who died when his car rammed into a van. The Madras HC had enhanced the compensation 1700% from the Rs 10.4 lakh awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Court, Tiruppur after examining evidence on record. The Supreme Court categorically said that placing undue importance on the FIR is not right when evidence on record suggested otherwise.
The Supreme Court said that although the counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments of the apex court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla and Others and in the case of Nishan Singh and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the same does not hold true in the instant case as material witnesses had testified that contrary to the FIR, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the van driver in front of the car in which the respondent's husband died. The court said that since the appellant had failed to submit any rebuttal evidence, the Madras HC was right in holding that the accident occurred due to the fault of the van driver. Dismissing the reliance placed by the counsel of the appellant on the above cases, the court said that "Whether driver of the vehicle was negligent or not, there cannot be any straitjacket formula. Each case is judged having regard to facts of the case and evidence on record. Having regard to evidence in the present case on hand, we are of the view that both the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, would not render any assistance in support of his case."
The Supreme Court also held that the Tribunal had erred in fixing the low compensation as evidence on record showed how much the deceased earned. It said that the Madras HC had correctly taken Form 16 as proof of earning and considering the age of the deceased and future prospects, correctly applied the formula to grant a just compensation. Hence the apex court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Madras HC order. It directed the appellant to pay Rs 1.85cr, as directed by the court, after deducting the amount kept as security (which was to be paid to the respondent separately by the court) in two months.
