Judgement 10-Aug
Judgement 10-Aug
Judgement 10-Aug
JUDGMENT
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1
serious injuries. The deceased was thus admitted in a Government
the driver and the owner of the vehicle were informed. Thereafter, the
Police started its investigation and charge sheeted the driver Sanjay
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation was filed on
8.5.2009. The owner of the vehicle denied the accident. It was stated
by the owner in his written statement that the driver - Sanjay was
employee between them. The driver neither filed written statement nor
evidence.
2
multiplier of 11 was applied. A sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral
did not accept the findings that the accident was caused by the car
owned by the owner and the negligent driving on the part of the driver.
3
The High Court, inter alia, held that the appellants have not examined
1 had given the registration number of the offending car to the Police
appellants.
7. The High Court noticed the fact that neither the owner of the offending
car nor the Insurance Company has examined the driver to prove that
the offending car was not involved in the accident. It was further held
that appellant No. 1 - the injured pillion rider has lodged report against
unknown car driver on 2.7.2007 i.e., after one month from the date of
incident. In the FIR, there is no mention that her injured husband was
but the said vehicle was involved in the accident was not disclosed. It
was also found that the married daughters of the deceased were not
made party to the claim petition, doubting the bona fides of the
the accident, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was allowed
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the order
4
lost her husband on 25.6.2007. The primary concern of appellant No. 1
husband was her priority rather than to lodge an FIR. The High Court
regarding non-disclosure of the name of the driver of the car in the FIR.
disclosing the car number of the offending vehicle. The owner and the
in support of their stand that the vehicle number given by her was not
was brought to the hospital in the vehicle which dashed into their
vehicle. She deposed that she was mentally disturbed and hospitalized,
that he had taken the vehicle on superdari and that he has not filed
admitted that bail application form and surety bond (Ex.68, 69 and 70)
show that he has stood surety for the driver wherein he has mentioned
the accused as driver of his vehicle. It has also come on record that
the owner has not made any complaint in respect of false implication
10. We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial
5
cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the
suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to
be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis
criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is
the tortfeasor will not get enhanced because of the daughters being
party to the claim application. It is since the daughters are married, the
12. The appellants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.1, was rendered when the appeal was
pending before the High Court but since the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company was accepted, there was no occasion for the High
6
particularly in respect of future prospects and other damages in terms
affection as well on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the
for wife and for the parental consortium for children is admissible. This
7
death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents
and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to
lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their
love and affection, and their role in the family unit.
35. The Tribunals and the High Courts are directed to award
compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate
8
conventional head. There is no justification to award
compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head.”
14. The evidence of appellant No. 1 on affidavit is that her husband was
view the income and the age and the future prospects in terms of
as follows:
Head Amount
A Loss of earnings @ monthly Rs. 10,12,440.00
salary @ 10,000/- and future
prospects @ 15%
(6,670/- + 1000 x 12 x11)
B Loss of Estate Rs. 15000.00
C Spousal consortium for wife Rs.40,000/-
15. Hence, the compensation comes out to be Rs. 11,63,000/- along with
16. Consequently, the order passed by the High Court is set aside. The ap-
9
.............................................J.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
.............................................J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 10, 2022.
10