Punjab & Haryana HC: Motor Accident Compensation Award Remanded for Fresh Assessment Due to Lack of Proof of Victim’s Employment
Case Name: M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattan Kumar & Ors.; Rattan Kumar v. Ashib & Ors.; Joginder Yadav v. Rattan Kumar & Ors.
Date of Judgment: January 10, 2020
Citation: FAO Nos. 3756, 4283 and 4357 of 2015 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
Held: The High Court set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award of Rs. 44,37,976 to Rattan Kumar, who had suffered 80% permanent disability in a 2013 accident, and remitted the matter back for fresh assessment of compensation. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in calculating future loss of earnings without verifying the claimant’s employment status in CRPF or his actual salary records. It reiterated that compensation must be just and reasonable, neither a bonanza nor largesse, and the Tribunal must summon evidence from the employer to determine whether the injured continued in service, drew salary, or received medical reimbursement. The Court further upheld the insurance company’s right of recovery against the insured, as the driver’s licence was found to be fake and the owner failed to show he exercised reasonable care.
Summary: The case arose from a road accident on 21.08.2013 in which Rattan Kumar, a CRPF constable, suffered grievous injuries leading to 80% functional disability. The Tribunal awarded him Rs. 44,37,976 including over Rs. 36 lakhs for future income loss, medical expenses, and non-pecuniary damages. The insurance company appealed, arguing that the award was excessive and that the driver’s licence was fake, entitling it to recovery rights. The owner challenged the insurer’s recovery rights, relying on renewal of the licence by RTA Gurgaon, while the claimant sought enhancement, demanding assessment of 100% disability. The High Court, after analyzing evidence and precedents such as National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) and Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba (2018), held that renewal does not cure a fake licence, and since the owner failed to prove he had verified the licence or driver’s skill, the insurer was rightly granted recovery rights. However, regarding compensation, the Court found that the Tribunal wrongly assumed total loss of employment without summoning records from CRPF or proof of non-reimbursement of medical expenses. It remanded the matter for fresh assessment based on additional evidence from the employer.
Decision: The High Court remitted the case to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, to reassess compensation within four months after summoning CRPF records and allowing parties to lead additional evidence. In the meantime, the insurer was directed not to recover compensation already paid to the claimant.