Case Note & Summary
Both appeals arose from a motor accident claim. The claimants (widow, minor sons, and aged mother of deceased Hari Dnyanesh Gaonker) sought enhanced compensation, while the insurance company contested liability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, decided Claim Petition No.83/2015 on 31.03.2018. The insurer had applied under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act because the owner and driver did not contest; the Tribunal did not formally decide the application but permitted the insurer to raise all defences. In First Appeal No.83/2018, the claimants argued that the Tribunal erred in income assessment, personal expense deduction, and consortium. In First Appeal No.12/2022, the insurer argued that the award was a nullity for failure to decide the Section 170(b) application and sought exoneration due to unlicensed or drunk driving and contributory negligence. The parties agreed for a common judgment. The insurer contended that the private investigator's evidence showed the licence was never issued by RTO, indicating an unlicensed driver; that the driver was under the influence of alcohol; and that two pillion riders (the deceased's wife and minor son) amounted to contributory negligence. It also argued that the Tribunal erred in relying on unsigned balance sheets to determine the deceased's income at Rs.4 lakhs per annum when the only income tax return showed Rs.1,55,000. The claimants countered that the evidence established the truck came on the wrong side and dashed against the motorcycle; that there was no medical evidence of alcohol; and that the Chartered Accountant's balance sheets were admissible without examining the maker. They further submitted that deduction should not exceed 25% and consortium should be awarded to each claimant. The available text ends after the submissions; the final holding and operative order are not mentioned.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Insurance Company's Defences - Section 170(b) Leave - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 170(b), 149(2) - The insurer applied for leave under Section 170(b) because the owner and driver did not appear or defend; the Tribunal did not formally decide the application but allowed the insurer to raise all defences, including quantum. The insurer contended the award was nullity, relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Jairani. The claimants did not object to the Court granting leave now given the parties proceeded on that basis (Paras 2-3, 8). B) Motor Vehicles Act - Breach of Insurance Policy - Unlicensed Driver - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149(2) - Insurer argued RW2 private investigator deposed that the licence attached by police was never issued by RTO, thus an unlicensed driver drove the insured truck, constituting breach of policy conditions. The insurer sought exoneration from liability. The issue was whether such breach entitled the insurer to avoid liability (Para 4). C) Motor Vehicles Act - Breach of Insurance Policy - Driving Under Influence of Alcohol - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149(2) - Insurer alleged the driver was under the influence of alcohol, which amounted to an offence under the MV Act and breach of policy terms. It sought exoneration on this ground. Claimants countered that mere FIR statements are insufficient and burden is on respondents to prove alcohol above prescribed limits (Paras 5, 9). D) Motor Vehicles Act - Contributory Negligence - Pillion Riders on Motorcycle - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Insurer argued two pillion riders (deceased's wife and minor son) amounted to breach of traffic rules and contributory negligence; Tribunal did not adequately consider. Claimants submitted evidence established truck came on wrong side and dashed against motorcycle; minor contributed nothing. The issue of apportionment of compensation arose (Paras 6, 9). E) Motor Vehicles Act - Assessment of Income - Reliance on Income Tax Returns and Balance Sheets - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (compensation proceedings) - Only ITR for 2010-11 showed Rs.1,55,000; AW2 CA produced four unsigned balance sheets; no returns filed based on them; Tribunal erred in relying on them to determine income at Rs.4 lakhs p.a. Claimants relied on Shri Man Bahadur Chettri to argue CA balance sheets are admissible without examining maker. The Court considered admissibility and weight of such evidence (Paras 7, 10). F) Motor Vehicles Act - Deduction for Personal Expenses and Consortium - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Tribunal deducted 50% personal expenses, but deceased left widow, minor sons, aged mother, so deduction should not exceed 25%; Tribunal failed to award consortium to each claimant; claimants sought enhancement per Pranay Sethi and Anjali (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether insurance company could contest claim on grounds beyond Section 149(2) MV Act; whether insurer proved breach of policy due to unlicensed/drunk driver; whether pillion riders amounted to contributory negligence; whether Tribunal correctly assessed deceased's income and applied deductions/consortium
Law Points
- Insurer may seek leave under Section 170(b) MV Act to contest claim on all grounds
- award without deciding Section 170(b) application may be challenged
- unlicensed driver or drunk driving may breach policy and entitle insurer to exoneration
- contributory negligence requires proof
- income tax returns and audited balance sheets relevant for income assessment
- deduction for personal expenses depends on number of dependents
- consortium must be awarded to each claimant
