The below judgments elaborate upon the motor accident claims filed by claimants in case of a motor accident. According to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the following persons can file a motor accident claim:
The person who has sustained an injury;
Owner of the damaged property;
All or any legal representative of the deceased who died in the accident; or
A duly authorised agent of the injured person or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased who died in the accident.
Can the compensation be reduced if the person is able to continue work after the accident?
Is the insurer liable to conduct a breath analysis or blood test to reject the claim on the ground of drunken driving?
Does the death of the injured claimant reduce the motor accident claim petition?
Is a petition filed by a dependent mother-in-law maintainable?
Is the vehicle manufacturer liable for the deficiency in service for repair by the authorized dealer?
While deciding on compensation to be paid in a case of a motor vehicle accident, the Supreme Court has reduced the compensation granted by the High Court to a government servant considering that there was no permanent disability, he wasn't immobilized and he continued to work even after the accident.
The Supreme Court held that a breath analyzer test or blood test as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act is not necessary for an insurer to repudiate an accident policy claim on the ground of drunken driving if the insurance company is able to establish from the facts that the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to sue survives to a deceased person’s heirs and legal representatives in so far as the loss to the estate is concerned. The Court added that the loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor's fee, etc. including income and future prospects.
The Supreme Court observed that a motor accident claim petition filed by a mother-in-law who was dependent on her deceased son-in-law is maintainable and the term 'legal representative' should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Supreme Court observed that a vehicle manufacturer cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorized centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Satish Chandra Sharma on 23 February 2022
@ SLP(C)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1579 OF 2022
(@SLP(C) No(s). 14350/2019)
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
VERSUS
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA & ANR.
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent fairly states that the said respondent had continued in government service even after his accident, and has retired on superannuation. Learned counsel, however, states that the first respondent had lost out on the encashment of his earned and medical leaves, due to the injuries suffered by him, a fact that has already been addressed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). First respondent was also denied and deprived of certain allowances that were paid to him when he was in the CID department, viz., the intelligence allowance, special allowances and special pay allowance, as he was transferred from the CID Department to the Wireless Department on account of his injuries.
Signature Not Verified Further, the first respondent underwent Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.26 an operation and an implant has been fixed on his spine which 13:14:14 IST Reason: affects him physically. The first respondent, owing operation and related medical issues, has been deprived of post-retirement earning. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the fact that as per the certificate of disability, the said respondent has suffered 75% disability in the lower limbs. However, during the course of the hearing, the learned counsel has accepted that the first respondent can move around, but sometimes he requires assistance.
In view of the accepted position that the first respondent had continued to work, we do not think the High Court was correct in awarding compensation of Rs.56,44,378/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Eight only) by applying the multiplier to the net salary payable to the first respondent. The first respondent has continued to earn the monthly salary he was earlier drawing, including increments, except some allowances given due to the nature of posting. The first respondent, at the time of the injury, was 56 years old and had about four years of service till his retirement. The High Court also failed to notice that the injury certificate did not relate to permanent disability in the entire body, and had certified 75% disability in the lower limbs. As noted above, the first respondent is not immobilized. He can perform and undertake daily chores without help and assistance.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) had noticed all these pertinent facts and had awarded compensation under the following heads:-
@ SLP(C) No(s). 14350/2019
1. On account of injuries caused, Rs. 1,50,000/- pain, deprivation of amenities of life, shortening of long life, inconvenience, sadness disappointment, depression and mental and physical agony.
2. The inconvenience due to Rs. 1,50,000 injuries in carrying out day to day/routine work
3. Special expenditure on transport Rs. 50,000/-
4. Under Medical expenses Rs. 94,500/-
5. Expenses on medical attendant Rs. 9,500/- and nutritious food during treatment in hospital.
6. Amount of earned leave. Rs. 1,57,000/-
7. For transport expenses to and Rs. 10,000/- from the Hospital Total Rs. 6,21,000/-
Keeping in view the aforesaid position, along with the facts that the first respondent had undergone an operation and an implant had been fixed on his vertebrae causing him physical pain, discomfort and possible decrease in lifespan, and that he though entitled to pension and retirement benefits, has lost the opportunity to take up post-retirement employment, we deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation of Rs. 6,21,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Twenty One Thousand Only) by a further amount of Rs. 3,79,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Seventy Nine Thousand Only). In other words, the first respondent is entitled to receive total compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) in all.
The further compensation of Rs. 3,79,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh and Seventy Nine Thousand Only) would be paid within six weeks from today with interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing @ SLP(C) No(s). 14350/2019 of the claim application.
Download complete judgement by clicking on the button given below >>
The judgments elaborate upon motor accident claims that are governed by the Motor Vehicles Act. According to Section 165 of the Act, a claim for compensation can be filed in the following instances:
When the accident involves the death of the person, bodily injury to the person, damage to any property of the third party, or both.
When the accident arises out of the use of a motor vehicle.
A motor accident claim is filed in the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) established under the Act.
If you are involved in a case under the Motor Vehicles Act and want to file a motor accidents claim, or if you are an insurance company that wants to challenge a compensation claim, it is recommended to engage the advice and services of a motor accident lawyer who can guide you through the entire process and prepare your case strategically. An expert lawyer is better equipped with the knowledge of the Act and will help you file an indisputable claim or oppose it, as the need be. Whether the case is related to claims under the Act or any other aspect of it, a motor accident lawyer can ensure that you are represented effectively.
635+ Lawyers are online 
