Lucknow, The Allahabad High Court has held that an appellate court can enhance compensation awarded in a motor accident claim even when the victims or their dependants have not filed a separate appeal or cross-objection, provided the insurer has challenged the quantum of compensation.
Justice Prashant Kumar of the Lucknow bench of the court on Wednesday observed that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and courts are required to ensure that victims and their dependants receive just and fair compensation in accordance with law.
The court made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd against an award of the Faizabad Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. An SUV allegedly hit him, leaving him seriously injured. He died during treatment. On the deceased’s age, the court held that the age recorded in Aadhaar could not be treated as conclusive proof of his date of birth.
The tribunal had awarded ₹ 7.20 lakh to the family of one Sabhajeet Tadmali. The high court enhanced the compensation to ₹ 11,43,565, while retaining interest at 7 per cent per annum. The accident took place on November 16, 2017, when Tadmali was walking near Bariyawan crossing in Ambedkar Nagar. His family had sought compensation of ₹ 49.70 lakh. The family register showed his year of birth as 1967, though the exact date and month were unavailable. The high court also increased the deceased’s monthly income from ₹ 5,000 assessed by the tribunal to ₹ 7,400.46, corresponding to the minimum wage applicable to an unskilled worker.It further awarded consortium of ₹ 48,400 each to the deceased’s wife and two children, the order stated.
The court, therefore, treated him as 50 years old at the time of the accident and applied a multiplier of 13.
The court said technical considerations should not stand in the way of ensuring just compensation to accident victims and their dependants, according to the order.
The discrepancy in the driver’s name was also held to be insufficient to disbelieve the prosecution and claimants’ case, according to the order.
Rejecting the theft plea, the court noted that the vehicle owner had neither lodged an FIR nor produced any cogent evidence to establish that the SUV had been stolen before the accident.
