Dependency, Not Legal Status, Governs Computation of Loss of Dependency; Second Wife and Minor Daughter Held Entitled to Compensation under MV Act: Karnataka HC
The Court Enhanced the Motor Accident Compensation from ₹15 Lakhs to ₹30 Lakhs.
The Court Enhanced the Motor Accident Compensation from ₹15 Lakhs to ₹30 Lakhs.
In the case at hand, a 25-year-old fish vendor sustained grievous injuries after a car driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner collided with his motorcycle.
Delhi High Court ruled that an earning husband is entitled to claim compensation under the head of loss of dependency for the death of his earning wife, holding that dependency extends to the deceased spouse’s contribution to the household corpus and is not negated merely because the surviving spouse is also earning.
“While the loss of leg cannot be compensated, the appellant could be paid pecuniary compensation towards the purchase of the prosthetic leg and its repairs. It would tend to do justice.”
The Supreme Court held that courts must ensure just compensation even where a legitimate conventional head has been omitted by the courts below. Correcting such an omission, it enhanced the MACT award by granting ₹40,000 each towards filial consortium to the parents of the deceased.
In a judgment arising from a five-year-old child run over by a tanker while walking to school, the Supreme Court declared that Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations and Panchayats bear an enforceable duty to provide pedestrian infrastructure, with remedies independent of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Court recognised that it would be unrealistic to expect a constant vigil over every tree and shrub within city limits. Likewise, although it may be conceivable that an old branch might eventually give way, public authorities cannot be expected to cut every branch merely because such a possibility exists.
In the present case, a motor vehicle accident involving 2 motorcycles resulted in grievous injuries to 1 appellant and the death of the other, a 30-year-old supervisor employed in a private company.
The Supreme Court settled the law but not before cataloguing a striking number of contradictory judgments from the same High Courts, sometimes by benches of equal strength, on the same point of law.
The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by Rs 5,79,300.
MoRTH has notified the Hit and Run Motor Accidents Amendment Scheme enhancing digital processing, revising forms, and simplifying claims for victims and families.
“Claimant’s chances of a brilliant career, marriage and all other enjoyment of life have been snatched. Though, no amount of money can compensate such a loss, it does not mean that the just and adequate compensation should not be awarded for the above noted losses.”
“Finding that the driver was not cautious is one thing and finding negligence is quite another thing. Prima facie, the negligence was on the trailer driver as discernible from the evidence recorded before the Tribunal; standard of proof required being preponderance of probability”.
“Our country has done wonders in digital payment transactions. It is a matter of common knowledge that now under various schemes of the Government, funds are transferred to the beneficiaries directly in their bank accounts. As per the rough estimate, about 80% of the adult population in the country have bank accounts.”
The principle of awarding of future prospects must apply with equal vigor in case of non-earning victims of motor accidents, particularly with respect to homemakers.
“Any compensation awarded by a Court ought to be just, reasonable and consequently must undoubtedly be guided by principles of fairness, equity, and good conscience.”