The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that no limitations may be placed on evaluating the income of the wounded or the deceased in order to determine reasonable and equitable compensation for the dependents while calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and no restriction can be imposed in assessing the income of deceased or the injured in order to assess just and fair compensation for the dependents.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, an Insurance company has filed appeals against a common order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind in 4 different cases where the insurance company was ordered to pay a certain amount with 9% interest per annum.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objections about the cause of action and misjoinder of parties in written statements submitted with all claim applications. It was claimed that claimants, or petitioners, could be required to provide stringent evidence of the facts listed in their individual claim petitions. Further, it was submitted that the petitioners provided a fabricated and fraudulent account of the deceased or wounded person's income and education. In actuality, the offending truck was never involved in an accident. The concocted version is the foundation of the FIR. It was acknowledged that on the day of the claimed collision, respondent No. 3 was the insurance provider for the accused truck. Additionally, the petitioners' and claimants' request for compensation is rejected. It was requested that the petitioners' claim petitions be graciously rejected in response to the responding responder.
In addition, counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted separate written statements in each of the claim petitions, raising preliminary objections to the falsity and frivolity of the petition, the action's basis, locus standi, maintainability, and the failure to join the required parties, among other issues. It was argued, on the grounds, that the claimants/petitioners be subject to stringent proof about the wage of the deceased or wounded. The petitioners have filed a fictitious police report in cooperation with the local authorities. Actually, at the specified date, time, and location, there had been no such accident involving Oil Tanker No. HR38F-4365 or as a result of the driver's negligence. Neither the deceased nor the injured have claimed any injuries.
The petitioners/claimants were asked to provide stringent evidence of their age, income, and compensation claim, and all of the facts were rejected with the hope of this. The petitioners begged that the responding respondent would kindly dismiss the claim petitions they submitted.
Observations of the Court:
The bench noted that the income specified in the Minimum Wages Act, which is periodically changed, might serve as a fundamental standard or guideline to determine the income of the deceased or, if applicable, the wounded. Every case must be assessed based on its unique facts and circumstances. In order to determine proper and equitable compensation for the dependents, there can be no limitations placed on the evaluation of the deceased's or wounded person's income. The bench reasoned that the Motor Vehicles Act's provision for compensation is a helpful piece of legislation and that it is "unjustified" to restrict the assessment of the deceased victim's income under the Minimum Wages Act in this particular circumstance.
The bench held that neither a set rule requiring the deceased's income to be taken only in accordance with periodically increased minimum wages nor a fixed rule requiring there to be documentary proof of the deceased's income could apply in all circumstances.
The decision of the Court:
In this instance, the Court ruled that the income determined by the Tribunal is reasonable and that no consideration has been given to future prospects. It concluded that the Tribunal's award of compensation has to be recalculated. After the court determined the increased compensation, the plea was resolved.
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Limited vs Sunil and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Amarjot Bhatti
Case No.: FAO No. 1113 of 2018
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
