AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard Ms. Mrunal Naik, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S. O. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
In the present Appeal, challenge is to the Judgment and Award dated 6/12/2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in MACP No. 1357/2015 on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not considered the aspect of contributory negligence in the accident, in which, the deceased Mohd. Firoj Ali Mohd. Ali caused death.
The undisputed facts of the present Appeal are that, on 20/8/2015 at about 10.20 hours, on Nagpur Highway Road, in front of Badal Bar, Vidya Nagar Square, which comes within the jurisdiction of Koradi Police Station, deceased was proceeding by driving Moped bearing registration No. MH-40-AS-9115. At that time, the offending vehicle i.e. TATA 407 Mini Truck bearing registration No. MH-40-6150 came from same direction and gave dash to the moped of the deceased Firoj from behind, as a result, he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. After this accident, offence came to be registered at Koradi Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle under Sections 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code.
The Appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Firoj, filed the Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur stating that the deceased was 54 years old at the time of accident. He was in service as Technician Grade-IV in Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd., and was getting salary of Rs.44,457/- per month. As such, according to the Appellants, they are entitled for compensation of Rs.61,71,615/-.
The Appellant/Insurance Company, in response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, has appeared and contested the Claim Petition by filing written statement in the matter. The Appellant has taken a specific stand that the deceased was also responsible for the accident, and therefore, it is a case of contributory negligence. To substantiate this submission, the Appellant/Insurance Company has relied upon the police case papers, more particularly, the statement of eye-witness, recorded by the Police Officer.
In the background of defence of Appellant the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on the basis of investigation papers including Form-AA, FIR, Spot Panchanama, held that offending Mini Truck has given dash to the vehicle of deceased from backside. Driver of the offending Mini Truck has not taken proper care and precaution and found that due to his rash and negligent driving, father of the Respondents/Claimants met with an accident. Thereafter, by considering the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, awarded compensation of Rs.48,97,768/-towards pecuniary loss and conventional heads.
The Appellant/Insurance Company, who approached before this Court, has raised the ground in the present Appeal that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the case of the Appellant as contributory negligence of the deceased in the matter. According to the Appellant, it is clear from the record that on the day of incident, the deceased, who was driving moped, has taken ‘U’ turn and failed to see the offending vehicle, which was coming in high speed from backside and thereby due to negligence of the deceased, offending vehicle gave dash to the Moped of the deceased from the backside, hence, the deceased was also required to be held as equally responsible for the accident, and therefore, it is a case of contributory negligence.
It is pertinent to note that, though specific defence was taken by the Appellant/Insurance Company before the Tribunal of contributory negligence, but no independent evidence was produced before the Tribunal. So also the driver of the offending vehicle was also not examined before the Tribunal. Hence, the issue, which was raised by the Appellant/Insurance Company, was not established before the Tribunal. On the basis of police case papers, oral argument before the Claim Tribunal as well as before this Court is advanced by the Appellant.
It is pertinent to note that ‘U’ turn on the road is made for the purpose of taking turn by the person while changing his side of road, and therefore, deceased who has taken ‘U’ turn to change his side, cannot be said at fault, unless there is a specific evidence on record that the deceased was totally negligent while taking ‘U’ turn. So also the place of accident comes under the city area, wherein driver of the offending vehicle is expected to drive his vehicle in moderate speed. Hence, only on the basis of police case papers, no conclusion can be drawn in the matter. In the circumstances, finding recorded by the learned Tribunal while deciding the Claim Petition seems to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The Respondents/Claimants have pointed out to this Court that though they have not filed Cross Objection, but considering the settled principles of law Claimant must get just and fair compensation, Respondent has pointed out that as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited V/s Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and Others, (2021) 11 Supreme Court Cases 780, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the amount awarded under the conventional heads should be enhanced by 10% every three years, which will bring consistency in respect of these conventional heads.
The Respondents/Claimants in addition to the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra) to state that on conventional head 10% enhancement every three years to bring consistency in respect of compensation under such head. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in this subject, has observed as under :
“28.In Pranay Sethi, the Constitution Bench held that in death cases, compensation would be awarded only under three conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The Court held that the conventional and traditional heads, cannot be determined on percentage basis, because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified, which has to be based on a reasonable foundation. It was observed that factors such as price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates, are aspects which have to be taken into consideration. The Court held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000, respectively. The Court was of the view that the amounts to be awarded under these conventional heads should be enhanced by 10% every three years, which will bring consistency in respect of these heads:
(a)Loss of estate - Rs 15,000 to be awarded.
(b)Loss of consortium.”
The learned Counsel for Appellant/Insurance Company has raised strong objection and stated that the view expressed in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra) is not in consonance with the view, which is expressed by subsequent Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hasina Yasmin and Others V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2919. In the said Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has considered the observation recorded by the Constitutional Bench in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and observed in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 as under :
“7.According to us, the Constitution Bench decision only provided for an enhancement of 10% in every three-year period with respect to accidents which occurred after 2017, the first enhancement being applied in 2020. Otherwise, as is indicated in the cited decision; which we find, with due respect, difficult to accept, the accident in 2010 is applied with a 10% increase when it is disposed of in 2020 and a further 10% increase if the matter is finally disposed of in 2023. This with due respect is not the purport of the decision in Pranay Sethi, as we understand it. There cannot be any enhancement made with respect to an accident which occurred in the year 1998, since the compensation for loss of estate and consortium as also expenses incurred for funeral is as on that date, which has been standardized by Pranay Sethi at 15,000/-, 40,000/- & 15,000/-, the delay in payment of which is compensated by the interest directed to be paid.
8.We hence respectfully sound a doubt, with all the respect at our command, regarding the enhancement as made in the aforesaid decision to the conventional heads based on Pranay Sethi¹ Being a co-ordinate Bench, we would only refer the matter to a Larger Bench, which we do. The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.”
Hence, according to the Appellant, as this issue is referred to the Larger Bench and same is now seized in the hands of Larger Bench, the benefit of the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) cannot be accorded to the Respondents/Claimants in the matter.
In view of this controversy, the Appellant has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kanishk Sinha & Another V/s The State of West Bengal & Another, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 259, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Court Judgments are inherently retrospective unless explicitly stated to operate prospectively. In respect of this Judgment, he has relied upon the paragraph No.3 of the said Judgment, which reads as under :
“3.The nature of allegations in these two cases is similar against the appellants, relating to forgery, fraud, deception, cheating, damage caused to reputation, unlawful extraction of money, threat, misrepresentation and criminal conspiracy etc. In fact, six revisions were filed by the appellants before the Calcutta High Court regarding the filing of charge sheet, as well as against certain interim orders passed by the Lower Court. But that is not very relevant. What is relevant is the only point which has been raised by the appellants in their revisions before the High Court, which was that not only are these FIRs motivated and false, and thus liable to be quashed, but also that the second FIR has been registered on the complaint which was filed before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC, and it was not accompanied by an affidavit and therefore, the law as laid down by this Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287 has been violated as all such complaints should now be accompanied by an affidavit according to Priyanka Srivastava (supra). The learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the view that the directions of this Court in the above case could only operate prospectively and will not have any retrospective application, and will thus not be applicable to the complaint lodged against the appellants in the year 2010-2011. The appellant no.1, all the same, who argued in person before the High Court, emphasised before this Court and would argue that all the judgments of this Court are retrospective in nature and therefore it cannot be said that this would not be retrospective particularly when it has not been specifically stated in the judgment of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) that it will operate prospectively. Now the law of prospective and retrospective operation is absolutely clear. Whereas a law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective operation, the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpreted by the Court. The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively. The prospective operation of a judgment is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to persons or to avoid undue hardships to those who had bona fidely done something with the understanding o the law as it existed at the relevant point of time. Further, it is done not to unsettle something which has long been settled, as that would cause injustice to many.”
He has further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors. V/s Jammu and Kashmir National Conference & Anr. 2023(12) Scale 389, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in such contingency where the reference or review is pending before the Court, the High Court shall proceed to decide the matter on the basis of law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. He has relied upon the paragraph 35 of the said Judgment, which reads thus :
“35.We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680(5*). The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it.”
In the light of this legal position, in my considered opinion, as per the Judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), is required to be made applicable in the matter, consequently Respondents/Claimants are entitled for 10% increase in every three years under the conventional heads awarded by the Tribunal.
It is further necessary to record the fact that the proceedings under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act for compensation is beneficial legislative scheme and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are clearly states that just and fair compensation shall be awarded to the Claimants. The underlined principles under the Motor Vehicles Act is that in assessing motor vehicle accident compensation claim, the efforts should be made to place victim as near to the position as he or she was in before the accident with other compensatory direction or loss of amenities and other payments in case of injury claim, and in a death claim, efforts should be made that the Claimants, who are left behind by the deceased, should not suffer the financial crisis in their life due to untimely death caused to the deceased in the vehicular accident.
Bearing in mind this principle, in my considered opinion, the Respondents/Claimants are held entitled for the benefit of interest as per the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra). In addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the Respondents/Claimants are entitled for compensation under the following conventional heads —
Loss of Estate … Rs.15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 10% after every three years from the date of accident till the date of Judgment of this Court.
Funeral expenses … Rs.15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 10% after every three years from the date of accident till the date of Judgment of this Court.
Total … 30% of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000) = Rs.9000/-.
Loss of Consortium … Rs.40,000/- each to the Respondents/Claimants (Rs.40,000 x 4 = Rs.1,60,000/-) along with 10% increase in the amount of Consortium after three years i.e. from the year 2015 (in which accident occurred) till the year 2026 i.e. for 11 years is to be calculated as – 10% x 3 = 30% of Rs.1,60,000/- = Rs.48,000/-. Total amount of consortium and interest comes to Rs.1,60,000/- (Consortium) + Rs.48,000/-(Interest) = Rs.2,08,000/-
Total amount of … Rs.2,17,000/- (Rs.2,08,000/- + Rs.9000/-) compensation.
In the result, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
First Appeal is dismissed.
The Respondents/Claimants are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.2,17,000/-.
The Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional amount of Rs.2,17,000/- with the Registry of this Court within a period of three months.
After depositing the additional compensation amount, Respondents/Claimants are permitted to withdraw the same, subject to satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
No order as to costs.