Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by New India Assurance Company Limited against the judgment and award dated 02.01.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubli, in MVC No. 102/2011, granting compensation of Rs. 2,62,000 with interest at 6% per annum to the parents of a 20-year-old deceased daughter. The deceased died on 28.11.2009 when she was on her way to the field; the driver of a tractor bearing registration No. KA.25/T-2864 allegedly drove it rashly and negligently and dashed against her, causing fatal injuries. The claimants, the parents, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, stating that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000 per month as a coolie and was the breadwinner. The insurance company denied the accident's manner and contended that the death was due to strangulation and not due to the tractor's involvement. The Tribunal, after examining evidence including the postmortem report (Ex. P5) and other documents, held that the accident occurred due to the driver's rash and negligent driving and awarded the said compensation. The insurance company appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the award on the ground that the accident was doubtful. The High Court examined the postmortem report, which stated that 'accidental strangling occurs when a necktie (scarf) is caught in a moving machinery,' and concluded that the cause of death was indeed the accident and not a separate incident. The court held that the report must be read as a whole and that the opinion of the doctor could not be read in isolation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. However, the court noticed that the compensation awarded was meagre, particularly given the deceased's age and the fact that the claimants were poor coolies. Despite the claimants not having filed an appeal for enhancement, the court invoked its power under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to mould the relief and enhance the compensation. The court referred to Supreme Court decisions in K. Muthuswami Gounder v. N. Palaniappa Gounder and Banarsi v. Ram Phal, holding that the appellate court has wide power to pass any decree or order which ought to have been passed, even in favour of a party who has not appealed, to avoid injustice and do complete justice. The court emphasized that the Motor Vehicles Act is a social beneficial legislation and that the emotional vacuum of losing a child cannot be filled by monetary compensation, but just and proper compensation must be paid. The court enhanced the compensation and directed the insurance company to pay the enhanced amount with interest.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Proof of Accident - Postmortem Report - Interpretation - Accidental strangulation occurs when a necktie (scarf) is caught in moving machinery - The postmortem report, read as a whole, indicated that the external appearance of the body was consistent with accidental death due to strangulation by a moving machine; the court held that the cause of death was the accident and the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver, thereby dismissing the insurance company's appeal (Paras 16-17). B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 33 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166, 173(1) - Appellate Court's Power - Compensation Enhancement - Even though the claimants did not prefer an appeal, the High Court exercised its power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC to enhance the meagre compensation awarded by the Tribunal; relying on Supreme Court decisions, it held that the appellate court can pass any order which ought to have been passed to do complete justice between the parties, especially in a social beneficial legislation like the Motor Vehicles Act (Paras 18-21).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor despite the postmortem report indicating death by strangulation; whether the High Court can enhance the compensation amount in the absence of any appeal by the claimants, exercising power under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed, and the court, suo motu, exercised power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC to enhance the compensation, holding that the Tribunal awarded meager compensation; directed the insurance company to pay the enhanced just compensation with interest.
Law Points
- postmortem report must be read holistically
- accidental strangulation due to necktie caught in moving machinery constitutes accident
- Motor Vehicles Act is social beneficial legislation
- appellate court under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC has wide power to pass any order which ought to have been passed even in favour of party who did not appeal
- in exceptional cases court can enhance compensation to do complete justice
