Kiran Raj

The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the owner and rider of the vehicle challenging the liability to pay compensation in a motor accident claim, affirming the Tribunal’s finding that the accident resulted from the negligence of the motorcycle rider. The judgement states that the compensation awarded to the claimant stands valid, rejecting contentions regarding the legitimacy of the petitioner’s claim.

The case concerns an accident that occurred on March 25, 2018, in which the claimant’s wife suffered fatal injuries after being hit by a motorcycle. According to the claim petition, the deceased was standing on the roadside when she was hit by a motorcycle driven in a rash and negligent manner. The injuries sustained proved fatal, and she passed away while undergoing treatment on March 30, 2018.

The claim petition was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act by her husband, asserting that the accident resulted from the gross negligence of the motorcycle rider. The claim was contested before the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the petitioner, concluding that the owner and rider of the motorcycle, along with the insurer, were jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimant. The Tribunal also determined that the second respondent, the motorcycle rider, was not in possession of a valid driving license at the time of the accident. Consequently, while the insurer was directed to compensate the claimant, it was granted the right to recover the amount from the vehicle owner due to the policy violation.

Challenging this decision, the owner and rider of the motorcycle appealed, asserting that the petitioner was not legally entitled to claim compensation as the husband of the deceased and that the accident was not solely attributable to the rider’s negligence. They further argued that the compensation awarded was excessive and not in accordance with legal principles.

The High Court carefully examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties, particularly the findings of the Tribunal.

On the issue of the petitioner’s entitlement to compensation, the Court stated: "The Tribunal has considered the contention regarding the validity of the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased and, after analysing Exhibit A1 (First Information Statement) and Exhibit A10 (certificate issued by the Village Officer), arrived at a finding that the petitioner and the deceased were living together as husband and wife and since they were depending on each other, the petitioner is entitled to compensation as a dependent." The Court took into account the fact that the petitioner and deceased had cohabited for over five years, a fact acknowledged in the insurer’s written submission.

Regarding the determination of negligence, the Court found that "a perusal of Exhibits A1 to A4 would show that the police registered a crime in connection with the accident and after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the second respondent for offenses under Sections 279, 338, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code." Additionally, the Court referred to past judicial precedent, noting that "the Tribunal also relied on the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company v. Pazhani Ammal and Others (2011(3) KLT 648) for recording a finding of negligence against the second respondent and I find no reason to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal."

The Court examined the basis of compensation calculations, confirming the Tribunal's approach as appropriate and legally sound. "The notional income of the deceased was fixed at Rs. 10,000/- and considering the number of dependents, 50% was deducted towards personal and living expenses. The correct multiplier was applied, and Rs. 5,40,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal also granted compensation towards conventional heads by following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]." The High Court found no reason to interfere with the compensation calculations, dismissing the argument that the amount awarded was excessive.

The High Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s adjudication. It stated that "the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed."

Case Title: Baby & Another v. Kunchu & Another
Case Number: M.A.C.A. No. 1727 of 2021
Bench: Justice Johnson John

[Read/Download order]