Ownership and Insurance — Transfer of Vehicle — Effect of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act — Policy runs with the vehicle. (Paras 29–37) The learned MACT dismissed the claim on the ground that original registration certificate evidencing transfer was not produced and ownership was not proved in favour of the impleaded party. The High Court found that Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 policies stood in the name of the registered owner and were valid on the date of accident. Ownership was not specifically disputed in pleadings. It reiterated the settled principle that insurance policy runs with the vehicle and not with the owner. Transfer of ownership does not absolve the insurer. Both tractor and trailer were intact and in use at the time of accident and both were insured. Ratio Decidendi: Where insurance policies covering the vehicle are in force on the date of accident, non-production of original registration certificate or transfer endorsement does not absolve insurer; policy runs with the vehicle and insurer remains liable.

advocatemmmohan

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Proof of accident and negligence — Standard of proof — Summary enquiry — Reliance on FIR and charge sheet. (Paras 15–28)

The claim arose from the death of a 38-year-old coconut plucker who was run over by a tractor-cum-trailer. The learned MACT dismissed the claim despite evidence of FIR, inquest report, charge sheet and eye-witness testimony.

The High Court reiterated that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature. Strict proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. Official records such as FIR and charge sheet carry probative value and, in absence of rebuttal evidence, negligence can be inferred on preponderance of probability.

Ratio Decidendi: In motor accident claims, negligence and involvement of the vehicle can be established on preponderance of probability through FIR, charge sheet and ocular evidence; strict criminal standard of proof is inapplicable.

---

Ownership and Insurance — Transfer of Vehicle — Effect of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act — Policy runs with the vehicle. (Paras 29–37)

The learned MACT dismissed the claim on the ground that original registration certificate evidencing transfer was not produced and ownership was not proved in favour of the impleaded party.

The High Court found that Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 policies stood in the name of the registered owner and were valid on the date of accident. Ownership was not specifically disputed in pleadings. It reiterated the settled principle that insurance policy runs with the vehicle and not with the owner. Transfer of ownership does not absolve the insurer.

Both tractor and trailer were intact and in use at the time of accident and both were insured.

Ratio Decidendi: Where insurance policies covering the vehicle are in force on the date of accident, non-production of original registration certificate or transfer endorsement does not absolve insurer; policy runs with the vehicle and insurer remains liable.

---

Appellate Interference — Erroneous Dismissal of Claim — Non-application of Mind by Tribunal. (Paras 26, 34–37)

The learned MACT failed to give a clear finding on negligence and erroneously exonerated insurers despite policies being in force.

The High Court held that dismissal of the claim reflected non-application of mind and was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: When evidence establishes negligence and valid insurance coverage, dismissal of claim on technical grounds such as non-production of original RC amounts to legal error warranting appellate interference.

---

Determination of Income — Addition of Future Prospects — Multiplier Method. (Paras 38–41)

The deceased, aged 38 years, was a coconut plucker earning Rs.200 per day. The Court assessed monthly income at Rs.4,000/- for 2007 and added 30% towards future prospects. Annual income thus assessed at Rs.62,400/-. After deducting 1/4th for personal expenses and applying multiplier ‘15’, loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.7,02,000/-.

Ratio Decidendi: For a self-employed deceased aged 38 years, addition of 30% towards future prospects is justified; multiplier method under Sarla Verma principles applies uniformly in death cases.

---

Conventional Heads — Consortium to All Dependents — Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate. (Paras 42–44)

The Court awarded Rs.40,000/- each to five claimants towards consortium (spousal, parental and filial), Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.

Ratio Decidendi: Consortium is payable not only to the spouse but also to children and parents of the deceased; conventional sums must be awarded in accordance with settled Supreme Court guidelines.

---

Award of Compensation Beyond Claimed Amount — Just Compensation Principle. (Paras 39, 45)

Though the claim was Rs.4,00,000/-, the Court awarded Rs.9,32,000/- holding that the duty of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just compensation” under Section 168 M.V. Act and there is no bar to exceeding the claimed amount.

Ratio Decidendi: In motor accident claims, courts are empowered to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed if evidence warrants, as the statutory mandate is to award just compensation.

---

Final Outcome

The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the learned MACT dated 19.10.2011 in M.V.O.P. No.29 of 2008 was set aside.

Claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.9,32,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

Apportionment:

Claimant No.1 (wife) – Rs.3,72,000/-
Claimant Nos.2 & 3 (daughters) – Rs.1,40,000/- each
Claimant No.4 (son) – Rs.1,40,000/-
Claimant No.5 (mother) – Rs.1,40,000/-

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 (Insurance Companies) held jointly liable to satisfy the award within two months. No order as to costs.