Allahabad High Court holds that “just compensation” can be increased even without a cross-appeal by claimants; rules Aadhaar card not conclusive proof of age and awards separate consortium to wife and children.
The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench has enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim from Rs.7.20 lakh to Rs.11.43 lakh while hearing an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Ltd., holding that appellate courts are duty-bound to ensure “just compensation” even if the claimants have not filed a cross-appeal or cross-objection.
Justice Prashant Kumar delivered the ruling in an appeal arising out of a 2017 road accident in which Sabhajeet Tadmali died after being hit by a Scorpio vehicle near Bariyawan crossing in Ambedkar Nagar. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faizabad, had earlier awarded Rs.7.20 lakh with 7% interest to the deceased’s wife and children.
The insurance company challenged the award, arguing that the vehicle had been stolen before the accident, that there was a discrepancy in the driver’s name, and that the deceased’s age should be treated as 51 years based on his Aadhaar card, which would affect the multiplier and compensation. The claimants opposed the appeal and also sought enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal had underestimated the deceased’s income and wrongly limited compensation under conventional heads.
Rejecting the insurer’s defence, the High Court found no evidence that the vehicle had been stolen, noting that no FIR or complaint had been filed by the owner. It also held that the alleged difference in the driver’s name was not a material discrepancy. On the issue of age, the Court ruled that in the absence of precise proof of date of birth, the deceased’s completed age must be considered. Since he had completed 50 years, the Tribunal had correctly applied multiplier 13. The Court also reiterated that Aadhaar card is not conclusive proof of age in motor accident compensation cases.
However, the Court accepted the claimants’ contention that the compensation was inadequate. Holding that minimum wages can be used as a yardstick for assessing notional income where no documentary proof is available, the Court fixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.7,400.46 instead of Rs.5,000. It also applied future prospects and recalculated the dependency loss accordingly.
On the legal question whether compensation can be enhanced in the insurer’s appeal without a cross-appeal by claimants, the Court answered in the affirmative. Relying on Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, along with Supreme Court precedents, the Court said the appellate court has wide powers to award just compensation and should not adopt a hyper-technical approach.
The Court further modified the award under conventional heads. It held that “loss of love and affection” is not a separate head and is subsumed within consortium. Referring to Supreme Court rulings in Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance and Somwati, the Court awarded Rs.48,400 each as consortium to the wife and two children, besides enhanced funeral expenses and loss of estate.
As a result, the total compensation was increased to Rs.11,43,565 with 7% interest, subject to adjustment of any amount already paid.
Bottom Line:
Motor Vehicles Act - Appeal by Insurance Company challenging quantum - High Court can enhance compensation even in absence of cross-appeal or cross-objection by claimants to award just compensation - Completed age of deceased to be considered for multiplier - Aadhaar card is not conclusive proof of age - Notional income can be assessed on basis of minimum wages - Consortium payable separately to wife and children.
Statutory provision(s): Section 166, Section 168, Section 169, Section 173, Order XLI Rule 33, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Reeta, (Allahabad)(Lucknow Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2984237
