Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a first appeal filed by the legal heirs of deceased Narendra Parsekar challenging the judgment and award dated 27.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goa. The appellants, being the widow and two minor sons of the deceased, claimed that the compensation determined by the Tribunal was inadequate. The deceased was a government servant aged 52 at the time of the accident, and the appellants argued that after his demise, the Government accepted the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission, substantially increasing salaries of government employees. They contended that the deceased would have had eight years of service left and that his family would have benefited from the increased salary had he been alive. Therefore, they sought enhancement of compensation to reflect the post-accident pay revision. The insurance company, respondent no.3, filed cross-objections contending that the driver of the insured vehicle had no valid driving licence, which amounted to a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, thereby absolving the insurer of liability. The owner of the vehicle, respondent no.2, opposed the cross-objections, asserting that a valid insurance policy existed and that the burden lay on the insurer to prove any fundamental breach, which it had failed to discharge by leading evidence on the issue of the driver's licence. The High Court heard rival submissions. On the quantum issue, the court noted that the appellants' contention, though attractive, had to be rejected in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation. The court extracted paragraphs 43 to 47 of Sarla Verma, wherein the Supreme Court had negatived a similar argument that actual future pay revisions should be taken into account. The Supreme Court observed that if the deceased had not died in the accident, he might have died of ill health, lost employment, or met other calamities, and that imponderables in life are too many. It held that actual future pay revisions are not a sound basis for calculating loss of dependency. Instead, future prospects are accounted for notionally by adding a percentage to the actual salary, and for the age group of the deceased, a 15% addition had already been granted in terms of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi. On the issue of the driver's licence, the court recorded the rival contentions of the insurance company and the owner but the excerpt of the judgment provided does not contain the final resolution of that issue or the operative order. The judgment excerpt ends with the court quoting Sarla Verma on future prospects. Therefore, the final directions on the appeal and cross-objections are not available in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Future Prospects - Pay Commission Recommendations - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Not mentioned) - Claimants argued deceased government servant aged 52 would benefit from 7th Pay Commission salary hike and had 8 years service left; Court held following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation that actual future pay revisions cannot be taken into account; future prospects already considered via 15% addition under National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (Paras 3-11). B) Insurance - Fundamental Breach - Driving Licence - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Not mentioned) - Insurance company contended driver had no licence, fundamental breach; Owner contended valid policy and burden on insurer to prove breach, no evidence led; Court heard rival contentions on fundamental breach but final resolution not explicitly captured in available excerpt (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether claimants entitled to enhanced compensation based on 7th Pay Commission recommendations though benefit accrued post-accident; Whether insurance company liable when driver allegedly had no licence, amounting to fundamental breach of insurance policy
Final Decision
The court rejected the appellants' contention that post-accident pay commission recommendations should enhance compensation, following Sarla Verma. The final order on appeal and cross-objections is not available in the provided excerpt.
Law Points
- Post-accident pay revisions cannot be taken into account for computing loss of dependency
- Future prospects to be added as per age
- Burden of proving fundamental breach of insurance policy is on insurer
- Driver without valid licence may constitute fundamental breach
- Quantum of compensation must follow Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi
