The High Court of Tripura dismissed a petition filed for setting aside the judgment and award given by the tribunal and enhancing the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident case. The court ruled that the petitioner failed to prove dependency on the deceased, lacked proper authorization to represent the minor child, and noted that the legal heir did not file a claim, emphasizing that claims under the MV Act should not be excessive or filed by unauthorized individuals.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner’s daughter met an accident and sustained grievous multiple injuries on various parts of her body. She was admitted to the hospital and was treated but died later. The accident occurred due to the high speed, rash, and negligent driving of the driver. The claimant appellants are totally dependent upon the income of the deceased and filed a claim petition under section 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act and got compensation lesser than what they claimed. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the claimants appealed to set aside the judgment and award and enhance the quantum of compensation awarded.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the monthly income of the deceased and considered to calculate compensation is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced. He argued that as the insurance policy of the offending vehicle is valid, the liability of paying the compensation is to be fastened on the respondent's insurance company. The court contented that the interest rate given by the tribunal is also on the lower side and needs to be enhanced and for personal expenses of the deceased, the tribunal has deducted 2/3rd of the monthly income but the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd as personal expenses.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent insurance company argued that the case was originally filed under Section 166 of the MV Act but later, it was converted under Section 163A of the MV Act and thereafter, the liability of paying compensation has been fastened on the owner of the vehicle and the amount has been fixed and in no way the respondent insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. He further contended that the owner of the vehicle had produced the driver's license but the driver of the vehicle had not produced the same and the driver of the offending vehicle was none other but the husband of the deceased who was driving the vehicle and the deceased was accompanying him in the said vehicle.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, owner of the vehicle contended that the owner had not expressly given the said vehicle to the driver for using the vehicle on the fateful day and he used the vehicle for his personal purpose and the deceased is the wife of the driver and the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle who is not a party to the proceeding, and the liability of paying the compensation should not be fastened on him.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that nowhere neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence, the petitioner justified his claim that he is dependent on the deceased and he has no other means to survive and had not stated in his pleadings that since how long he is staying with his daughter and whether he has any other family members to look after him and about his source of income and not produced any evidence to prove that he is entitled to claim the compensation and he has not placed any documentary evidence that he has filed the claim petition as he is legally authorized to represent the minor child before the Court as natural guardian.
The court further observed that either the natural parents i.e., the mother or father of the minor child would represent the minor child or in the event, that the mother or father of the minor child are not there, any competent person contemplated under the Act or by virtue of order obtained from the competent Court, a person would be authorized to represent the minor child but the petitioner has not any such record.
The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish the dependency on the deceased and it is to be noted that the legal heir who is supposed to be the husband of the deceased is expected to file the appeal seeking claim but for the reasons best known to the husband of the deceased has not preferred any claim or appeal nor he is made a party to the claim indicating that he was the driver.
The court further stated that claims under the MV Act is a beneficial legislation but they cannot be a bonanza and an unauthorized person cannot claim any compensation and an authorized person cannot claim more than what is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Babulal Chakraborty and anr. vs. Paltu Saha and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Amarnath Goud
Case No.: MAC APP. NO.81 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. P.S. Rouy
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. B. Majumder, Mr. S. Bhattacharya
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
