Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court has dismissed two appeals filed by United India Insurance Company Limited, challenging compensation awards granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in connection with a fatal road accident. The court upheld the Tribunal’s findings on negligence and liability, rejecting the insurer’s objections regarding insurance coverage and the entitlement of the deceased’s legal heirs to compensation.

On April 30, 2018, at approximately 9:40 AM, Satish and his nephew Shyam Babu were traveling in a battery-powered rickshaw towards Keshopur Mandi, Delhi. As they neared Ganda Nala, Khyala, a tractor bearing registration number RJ-22RA-2972, towing a trolley, allegedly struck their rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner. The impact caused both passengers to fall onto the road, resulting in severe injuries. Satish suffered multiple fractures and internal injuries and succumbed to complications on November 15, 2018, due to septicemia.

A First Information Report (FIR No. 83/2018) was registered at P.S. Khyala, Delhi, against the tractor driver, Nema Meharat, under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The investigation and site plan corroborated the injured’s version that the tractor was traveling at excessive speed and collided with the e-rickshaw.

Following the accident, Shyam Babu was hospitalized with multiple injuries, including fractures and head trauma. Satish remained in critical condition for months before succumbing to his injuries. The family filed claims seeking compensation for medical expenses, loss of income, and pain and suffering.

The MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 4,39,467/- along with 9% interest per annum to Shyam Babu and Rs. 5,54,946/- with 7% interest per annum to Premlata and Hemlata (sisters of deceased Satish) for the loss of their brother. The Tribunal determined that the accident was solely caused by the tractor driver's negligence.

United India Insurance Company filed two appeals (MAC.APP. 43/2021 and MAC.APP. 102/2024) against these awards, contesting the findings of negligence and its liability for compensation.

The insurance company argued that the accident resulted from the e-rickshaw driver’s negligence rather than the tractor driver’s fault. However, the Tribunal relied on the direct testimony of the injured, Shyam Babu, who deposed as PW-1. The court examined his statement:

“When they reached near Ganda Nala, the offending tractor No. RJ-22RA-2972, which was coming from the opposite direction and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, struck against the e-rickshaw from the front, resulting in a head-on collision, due to which the e-rickshaw toppled and he along with his uncle Satish, fell and suffered grievous injuries.”

The tractor driver, Nema Meharat, testified that he was driving in his own lane and that the e-rickshaw lost control after another vehicle applied brakes. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that there was no evidence supporting the claim that another vehicle had stopped suddenly. The judgment stated:

“In the absence of there being any evidence that there was a car driven in front of the e-rickshaw, the circumstances as claimed by R1W1 do not stand substantiated.”

The driver further admitted in cross-examination that he had fled the accident scene:

“He denied that he was driving at a high speed in a zig-zag manner but admitted that he fled away from the spot after the accident.”

The court observed that the chargesheet filed against the driver was sufficient proof of his negligence, citing previous case law:

“It is well settled that filing of a chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle, as has been held in the case of National Insurance Co. vs. Pushpa Rana (2009 ACJ 287 Delhi).”

Accordingly, the court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the accident was solely caused by the tractor driver's negligence.

The insurer contended that the trolley attached to the tractor was not insured, and since the accident involved the trolley, it should not be held liable. However, the court rejected this claim, stating:

“Since it was a head-on collision with the tractor, the trolley has to be considered as a part and parcel of the tractor.”

The judgment further stated that the insurance company could not evade liability on these grounds, affirming that the attached trolley was covered under the tractor’s insurance policy.

The insurer challenged the compensation awarded to the deceased’s sisters, arguing that they were married and not financially dependent on him. The court, referring to established legal precedents, explained the distinction between loss to estate and loss of estate. The judgment cited Francis Edwin v. Omana PK (2016) and Keith Rowe vs. Prashant Sagar (2010), noting:

“Loss to the estate of the deceased refers to the capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents subject to relevant deductions. In contrast, loss of estate includes compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of amenities, etc., of the deceased. That amount goes to the legal heirs by virtue of Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act.”

Since Satish was unmarried and survived only by his sisters, the Tribunal calculated compensation under loss of estate. The court upheld this methodology, stating:

“The learned Tribunal, by applying this formula, has calculated the loss of estate by taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,613/- on the basis of the minimum wages of an unskilled worker. An addition of 25% has been made towards future prospects to assess the monthly loss of income as Rs. 9,516/-.”

After appropriate deductions, the annual loss of estate was determined to be Rs. 38,064/-, and by applying a multiplier of 14, the total compensation was calculated as Rs. 5,32,896/-. The court found no reason to interfere with this assessment.

The High Court dismissed both appeals, concluding that the Tribunal’s findings required no interference. It stated:

“There is no infirmity in the impugned awards dated 17.03.2020 and 12.04.2023, which do not warrant any interference.”

The court also directed that the statutory deposit made by the insurer at the time of appeal be returned in accordance with the law:

“The present Appeals are dismissed accordingly, along with pending Application(s), if any. The statutory deposit be returned to the appellant/Insurance Company, in accordance with law.”

Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shyam Babu & Others
Case Number: MAC.APP. 43/2021 & MAC.APP. 102/2024
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

[Read/Download order]