THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus KAHLON @ JASMAIL SINGH KAHLON (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE NARINDER KAHLON GOSAKAN AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 16-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
v.
KAHLON @ JASMAIL SINGH KAHLON (DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE NARINDER
KAHLON GOSAKAN AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 4800 of 2021)
AUGUST 16, 2021
[NAVIN SINHA AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166 (a) – Compensation – Injuries
caused in a motor accident – Claimant suffered 100 per cent physical
disability in a motor accident – Claim for compensation – Award of
Rs. 1,00,000/- with 9% interest – Appeal before the High Court –
During pendency of the appeal, death of claimant, not attributed to
injuries suffered in the accident – Substitution of name of claimant’s
daughter in the appeal – High Court enhanced the compensation
to Rs 37,81,234/- – On appeal, held: The Act is a beneficial and
welfare legislation – If the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of
death, the legal representatives can also pursue claims for loss of
property akin to estate of the injured if he is deceased subsequently
for reasons other than attributable to the accident or injuries under
Clause 1(c) of s.166 – Such a claim would be completely distinct
from personal injuries to the claimant and which may not be the
cause of death – Such claims of personal injuries would undoubtedly
abate with the death of the injured – Insurer has a statutory
obligation to pay compensation in motor accident claim cases –
This obligation cannot be evaded behind the defence that it was
available only for personal injuries and abates on his death
irrespective of the loss caused to the estate of the deceased because
of the injuries – Total compensation reassessed as Rs.28,42,175/-
with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition,
till its realisation.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation.
Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for a
statutory claim for compensation arising out of an accident by the
person who has sustained the injury. Under Clause (b),
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 469
469
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
compensation is payable to the owner of the property. In case of
death, the legal representatives of the deceased can pursue the
claim. Property, under the Act, will have a much wider connotation
than the conventional definition. If the legal heirs can pursue
claims in case of death, there is no reason why the legal
representatives cannot pursue claims for loss of property akin to
estate of the injured if he is deceased subsequently for reasons
other than attributable to the accident or injuries under Clause
1(c) of Section 166. Such a claim would be completely distinct
from personal injuries to the claimant and which may not be the
cause of death. Such claims of personal injuries would undoubtedly
abate with the death of the injured. What would the loss of estate
mean and what items would be covered by it are issues which has
to engage the attention. The appellant has a statutory obligation
to pay compensation in motor accident claim cases. This obligation
cannot be evaded behind the defence that it was available only
for personal injuries and abates on his death irrespective of the
loss caused to the estate of the deceased because of the injuries.
[Para 9][475-E-H; 476-A]
1.2 The injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident
required prolonged hospitalization for six months. The extent of
disability suffered was assessed on 16.06.2000 as 100%. The
extent of disability, pursuant to physiotherapy was reassessed as
75% on 08.08.2002. In the interregnum, the injured resigned
his job on 30.09.2001 at the age of 53 years as he found movement
difficult and inconvenient without an attendant as distinct from
complete immobility. The injured was possessing professional
qualifications in labour laws and Industrial relations along with a
Diploma in Personnel Management. He may have had to suffer
some handicap in also practicing before the labour court, but
cannot be held to have suffered 100% physical disability as his
capacity for rendering advisory and other work coupled with
movement on a wheel chair with the aid of an attendant could still
facilitate a reduced earning capacity. It cannot be held that the
injured was completely left with no source of livelihood except to
deplete his estate. In assessing, what has been described as a
‘Just Compensation’ under the Act, all factors including
possibilities have to be kept in mind. [Para 17][478-C-F]
A
B
C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.