Supreme Court Increases Compensation for Reckless Driving Victim

Vimal Kanwar and Ors. Versus Kishore Dan and Ors.

Vimal Kanwar and Ors. Versus Kishore Dan and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:

1. Reckless and negligent driving causing death.
2. Employment status of the driver at the time of the accident.
3. Insurance Company's liability.
4. Entitlement and calculation of compensation.
5. Deductions from compensation.

Summary:

The present appeal challenges the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, which upheld the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur.

Issue 1: Reckless and Negligent Driving

The Tribunal affirmed that the reckless and negligent driving of Jeep No. RJ 10C 0833 caused the accident resulting in the death of Sajjan Singh Shekhawat. This finding was upheld by the High Court.

Issue 2: Employment Status of the Driver

The Tribunal confirmed that the driver was employed by the non-applicant No. 2 at the time of the accident, a finding that was also upheld by the High Court.

Issue 3: Insurance Company's Liability

The Insurance Company claimed that the vehicle owner violated the conditions of the Insurance Policy. However, the Tribunal found the Insurance Company liable, and this was upheld by the High Court.

Issue 4: Entitlement and Calculation of Compensation

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 14,93,700/-. The High Court, despite noticing errors in the calculation, upheld this amount. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Tribunal and High Court failed to ensure just and fair compensation. It ruled that Provident Fund, Pension, and Insurance should not be deducted from the actual salary of the victim for calculating compensation. It also held that income tax should not be deducted in the absence of evidence that the employer failed to deduct TDS. The Supreme Court determined the fair compensation to be Rs. 29,73,000/-.

Issue 5: Deductions from Compensation

The Supreme Court held that Provident Fund, Pension, and Insurance do not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for deduction. It also ruled that the salary receivable by the claimant on compassionate appointment is not a "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for deduction. Regarding income tax, the Court presumed that the employer had deducted TDS from the salary unless proven otherwise.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court modified the award to Rs. 29,73,000/- with a 12% interest rate from the date of the petition until payment. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the total award with interest minus any amount already paid within three months. The compensation was to be distributed among the appellants with specific directions for investment in fixed deposits for the daughter's education and marriage.