In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal by an insurance company and upheld a compensation award of Rs 1.3 crore to the mother of a man who died in a road accident. The court firmly rejected the insurer's argument seeking to reduce the payout on the grounds that the victim was not wearing a helmet at the time of the crash.
Court Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal
Justice M S Sonak upheld the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), which had granted the compensation to the claimant. The appeal was filed by the National Insurance Company, challenging the tribunal's order that held the driver of a Qualis car responsible for the fatal collision which occurred on January 17, 2021, on the Saligao–Calangute road in Goa.
The victim was riding an Activa scooter when he was hit by the insured Qualis car. He later succumbed to his injuries, prompting his mother to approach the MACT seeking compensation for her loss.
"No Helmet" Argument Fails in Court
A key contention raised by the insurance company was that the victim was contributorily negligent as he was not wearing a helmet. The appellant argued this should lead to a reduction in the compensation amount. However, the High Court declined to accept this plea.
The court observed that the insurance company had not raised this specific plea in its written statement before the tribunal. Furthermore, there was no corroborative evidence from eyewitnesses to support the claim about the helmet. Most crucially, the court noted that the alleged non-wearing of a helmet had no bearing on the cause of the accident itself.
"Considering the evidence on record, i.e. the fact that the Qualis vehicle was much larger, it was being driven at great speed, and the accident occurred when the Qualis was trying to overtake another vehicle by going to the extreme wrong side of the road, the helmet, possibly, would have made no difference," the court remarked.
Eyewitness Account and Rash Driving Established
The insurance company had also argued that the victim was negligent by entering the main road from a side road rashly. It contended the Tribunal wrongly held the Qualis driver solely responsible.
Justice Sonak rejected these submissions, noting that two eyewitnesses had provided a graphic account of the incident. Their testimony stated that the car was being driven at high speed and, while overtaking another vehicle, collided with the victim's scooty. This evidence, the court held, clearly established rash and negligent driving on the part of the Qualis driver.
The court also found that the compensation calculated by the MACT was based on documentary evidence of the victim's salary and employment. Disputing the victim's income, another argument by the insurer, was not sustained.
Concluding that no case was made out to interfere with the tribunal's award, the court dismissed the appeal. It allowed the claimant to withdraw the remaining compensation amount along with the accrued interest.
