Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerning compensation for injuries sustained by two gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle (jeep). The claimants, Anu Bhanvara (aged 15) and Rohit Kumar (aged 18), suffered permanent disabilities due to amputation of wrist and arm respectively. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had dismissed their claim petitions on the ground that negligence of the driver was not proved. The High Court, however, found composite negligence of the driver of the jeep and another vehicle, holding the owner and driver of the jeep liable but exonerating the insurer on the ground that the vehicle was insured as a goods vehicle and the claimants were gratuitous passengers not covered under the policy. The High Court enhanced compensation: for Anu Bhanvara to Rs.6,41,750 (from Rs.5,26,000) and for Rohit Kumar to Rs.7,36,000 (from Rs.5,78,000). The claimants appealed to the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement and direction for payment by the insurer. The Supreme Court considered two issues: adequacy of compensation and liability for payment. On quantum, the Court held that no interference was warranted as the High Court had awarded compensation under all requisite heads. On liability, the Court noted that the insurance was valid but did not cover gratuitous passengers. However, considering the peculiar facts—young children with permanent disabilities—the Court invoked the 'pay and recover' principle, directing the insurer to pay the compensation and then recover it from the owner and driver. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Gratuitous Passenger in Goods Vehicle - Pay and Recover Principle - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 147, 149 - Claimants, young children, suffered permanent disability as gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle (jeep) - High Court exonerated insurer on ground that policy did not cover gratuitous passengers - Supreme Court, in peculiar facts, invoked 'pay and recover' principle directing insurer to pay compensation with right to recover from owner and driver - Held that insurer must pay and then recover from owner and driver (Paras 7-12). B) Motor Accident Compensation - Quantum of Compensation - Adequacy - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claimants aged 15 and 18 years suffered amputation and permanent disability - High Court enhanced compensation under various heads - Supreme Court found no interference warranted with quantum - Held that compensation awarded was adequate (Paras 3-4, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amount of compensation awarded was adequate; and whether the payment of compensation is to be made jointly by the owner and driver of the vehicle, or by the insurer which could thereafter be recovered by the insurer from the owner and driver.
Final Decision
Appeals disposed of with direction that respondent no.1-insurance company shall pay the awarded compensation to the claimants, with right to realize the amount from respondents no.2 and 3 (driver and owner) in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Pay and recover principle
- Gratuitous passenger in goods vehicle
- Motor accident compensation
- Liability of insurer
