2021 (12) TMI 1527 - HC - Indian Laws

Entitlement to compensation - deceased died as a result of a motor vehicle accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck - valid and effective driving licence or not - valid insurance certificate or not - HELD THAT - The learned Tribunal has relied upon the findings of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mangey Ram in which it has been held that in absence of parents widow and children of the deceased even the married brothers of the deceased are entitled to compensation and in the aforesaid referred case the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another 1987 (5) TMI 377 - SUPREME COURT have been elaborately discussed and learned counsel for the appellant has also not disputed that the learned Tribunal has considered the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation in which it has been held that brother of a deceased is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 corresponding to Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 if he is a legal representative of deceased. There are no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the brother of the deceased are not dependent of the deceased therefore they are not entitled for compensation. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the deceased died as a result of a motor vehicle accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration no. HR 58 B-8867 on 18.11.2016?

(b) Whether at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending truck possessed a valid and effective driving licence and valid insurance coverage, and whether the vehicle was driven in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy?

(c) Whether the petitioners, who are the elder brothers of the deceased, are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and if so, the quantum of compensation and the liable party?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Causation of Death Due to Motor Vehicle Accident

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Sections 166 and 140, provide the statutory basis for claims arising from motor vehicle accidents causing death or injury. The Tribunal is tasked with establishing the factum of accident, negligence, and causation of death.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the deceased, while riding a motorcycle, was hit from behind by the truck driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in death on the spot. This factual finding was unchallenged on appeal.

Key Evidence and Findings: The accident occurred on Muzaffarnagar-Jansath Road near Chotoda bus stand. The truck's high speed and negligent driving were established through pleadings and evidence before the Tribunal.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal correctly applied the principles of negligence and causation under the Motor Vehicles Act to hold the truck driver liable for the fatal accident.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: No challenge was made to these findings; hence, the Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusions.

Conclusions: The Court affirmed that the deceased's death resulted from the negligent driving of the truck.

Issue (b): Validity of Driving Licence and Insurance

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the driver must hold a valid licence and the vehicle must be insured for compensation claims to be enforceable. Section 140 of the Act mandates compensation from the insurer irrespective of fault, provided the vehicle was insured.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the truck driver possessed a valid driving licence and the vehicle had valid insurance at the time of the accident. These findings were not disputed on appeal.

Key Evidence and Findings: Insurance certificate and driving licence documents were produced and accepted by the Tribunal.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the insurance policy covered the incident and the driver was authorized to drive the vehicle.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: No contrary arguments were raised, and the Court affirmed the findings.

Conclusions: The driver was duly licensed and the vehicle insured, making the insurer liable under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Issue (c): Entitlement of Elder Brothers as Claimants and Quantum of Compensation

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act allows legal representatives of the deceased to claim compensation. The concept of "dependency" is central to entitlement. The Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. clarified that a married daughter is entitled as a legal representative, but liability under Section 140 does not cease for absence of dependency. Further, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai held that brothers may be legal representatives entitled to claim if no closer relatives exist.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The appellant contended that elder brothers are not dependents and therefore not entitled to compensation beyond the statutory Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140. The Tribunal, however, relying on the Allahabad High Court decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mangey Ram and the Supreme Court precedents, held that in absence of parents, widow, or children, brothers are entitled as legal representatives to claim full compensation under Section 166.

The Court noted that the Tribunal had correctly applied the precedents, including the detailed discussion of the Manjuri Bera and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation cases, and that the appellant did not dispute the consideration of these precedents.

Key Evidence and Findings: The deceased was unmarried and had no widow or children. The claimants were his elder brothers. The monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 19,515, and the Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,15,540 as compensation with 7% interest.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the legal principle that in absence of closer heirs, brothers can claim compensation as legal representatives under Section 166. The appellant's argument that lack of dependency excludes entitlement was rejected, particularly in light of Section 140 liability and relevant case law.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's reliance on Manjuri Bera to exclude brothers from dependency was considered but distinguished, as the cited case also recognizes the brothers' entitlement in absence of closer relatives. The respondents' argument that the Tribunal rightly followed binding precedents was accepted.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the brothers are entitled to full compensation under Section 166 and that the Tribunal's award was justified. The appeal challenging this aspect was dismissed.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"In absence of parents, widow and children of the deceased, even the married brothers of the deceased are entitled to compensation."

"The liability in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not cease because of absence of dependency."

"Brother of a deceased is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 corresponding to Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if he is a legal representative of deceased."

The Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings on causation and validity of licence and insurance as unchallenged.

The Court rejected the contention that elder brothers are not entitled to compensation for accidental death of their brother in absence of dependency, holding that they qualify as legal representatives entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, thereby upholding the compensation award of Rs. 30,15,540/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of award till payment.