Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa &Anr.; vs C.S. Gurushanthappa & Anr

1. A certain Basavaraj was the driver of a privately owned car. In the night of October 28, 1992 he took out the car for a joyride and along with five persons, who were his neighbours, proceeded for the nearby Anjaneya temple for offering pooja. On way to the temple the car met with a fatal accident in which Basavaraj and four other occupants of the car died; the fifth passenger sustained injuries but escaped death. One of the persons dying in that motor accident was Nagaraj, whose parents are the appellants before this Court.

2. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased driver, Basavaraj filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. They got nothing. The Commissioner under the Workmen's 2 Compensation Act found and held that the accident did not take place in course of employment and rejected the claim for compensation.

4. The appellants took the matter in appeal before the High Court where they were equally unsuccessful. They are now in appeal before this Court by special leave.

6. We are, therefore, required to see how and why the appellants were denied compensation under section 140 of the Act and how far the denial was justified. The appellants filed a claim petition (MVC 1404/92) before the District Judge and MACT, Chitrandurga under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Nagaraj. The appellants' petition, along with four other claim petitions (filed by the heirs of the other 3 three occupants dying in that car accident and the fifth occupant who suffered injuries in that accident), was disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order dated May 9, 1996. From the order of the Tribunal, it appears that in four of the five cases before it, including MVC 1404/92, IAs were filed seeking interim compensation of rupees twenty five thousand (Rs.25,000.00) only (as the law stood at that time) in terms of section 140 of the Act. For some reason, however, no order was passed on the IAs and the Tribunal proceeded to examine the claimants' claim on merits under section 166 of the Act.

7. The Tribunal, in its order summarized the cases of each of the five claimants separately, noting the facts peculiar to the four deceased and the fifth injured occupant of the ill fated car. It also framed the issues arising in each case separately. In regard to Nagaraj, the son of the appellants, it noted that at the time of his death he was eighteen years old. According to the appellants, he worked at a sweetmeat stall and earned rupees eight hundred (Rs.800.00) only per month. He was going to Anjaneya temple in the car being driven by Basavaraj and in the accident he died on the spot. The appellants claimed compensation of rupees one lakh (Rs.1,00,000.00) only. In his case the Tribunal framed four issues which are as under: 4

8. The first two issues in the case of Nagaraj, as in all the other cases, were answered by the Tribunal in the affirmative. On issue no.3 appellant no.1, the father of the deceased Nagaraj stated on oath that his son was aged eighteen years and used to work in the hotel of one Siddappa who paid him rupees thirty (Rs.30.00) only per day, but the Tribunal disbelieved him and rejected his testimony. On the basis of the post mortem report, the Tribunal held that Nagaraj, at the time of his death, was aged about fifteen years. It further held that there was no evidence to show that at the time of his death Nagaraj earned anything, pointing out that in paragraph 22 of the claim 5 petition nothing material was mentioned about the loss of earning due to his death. Then, rather gratuitously it fixed the amount of compensation at rupees thirty thousand plus two thousand (Rs.30,000.00 + Rs.2,000.00) observing as follows:

9. Having, thus, put the worth of the life of Nagaraj at rupees thirty thousand (Rs.30,000.00) only the Tribunal proceeded to consider whether the appellants were entitled to receive even this amount from the owner of the car or the insurance company (second part of issue no.3 and issue no.4). It held that neither the owner of the car nor the insurance company was liable to pay anything to any of the claimants, including the appellants, because Basavaraj had taken out the car of his employer unauthorisedly and against his express instructions and had caused the accident by driving the car very rashly after consuming liquor. At the time of accident the car had been taken completely away from the control of its owner. In a sense it was stolen by the driver, even though temporarily. The accident was, thus, completely outside the insurance policy. No compensation was, therefore, payable to any of the claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6

mentioned compensation and-

mentioned compensation, he shall not be liable to pay the second-mentioned compensation."

18. In light of the discussions made above, we are unhesitatingly of the view, that the Tribunal was completely wrong in denying to the appellant, 14 the compensation in terms of section 140 of the Act. We find and hold that the appellant (as well as the other 3 claimants) were fully entitled to no fault compensation under section 140 of the Act. We, accordingly, direct the insurance company to pay to the appellant Rs.25,000/- along with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the order of the Tribunal till the date of payment. The other 3 claimants are not before this Court, but that is presumably because they are too poor to come to this Court. Since, we have allowed the claim of the appellants, there is no reason why this order should not be extended to the other 3 claimants as well. We, accordingly, do so. The insurance company is directed to make the payment as directed in this judgment within 3 months.

19. In the result, the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.

.....................................J (AFTAB ALAM) .......................................J (R.M. LODHA) New Delhi August 18, 2010.