Principle Of Pay & Recovery Not Applicable If Minor Drives Vehicle & Causes Accident; Vehicle Owner Liable To Pay Compensation: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court held that the principle of pay and recovery is not applicable in case a minor boy/girl drives the vehicle and causes the accident.
The Court said that in such a case, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
The Court was deciding a Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of the same.
A Single Bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar observed, “… the principle of pay and recovery is not applicable in case minor boy drives the vehicle and causes the accident. Hence, the prayer of pay and recovery is hereby rejected. … Respondent No.4-Mohammad Mustapa being the owner of the motor cycle has handed over the motor cycle to the minor boy. Hence, in this regard, owner of the vehicle namely, Mohammad Mustapa alone shall pay the compensation to the claimants and not the Insurance Company.”
Advocate C.R. Ravi Shankar appeared for the appellant while Advocate Nagaraja Hegde appeared for the respondents.
Brief Facts -
In 2008, the deceased was proceeding on the side of the road and at that time, a two-wheeler came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him due to which he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded the compensation on various heads. It fastened the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
The counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the accident was caused by a minor boy, aged 16 years, who was riding the motor cycle at the time of accident. Since the rider was a minor, he did not have a valid driving licence to ride the motor cycle. It was, therefore, submitted that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation in such a case.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “For applying the principles of pay and recovery as per sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if any of the conditions is violated, though Insurance Company can be exonerated from the liability, but the order of pay and recovery can be made. But in the present case, while considering Sub-Clause (ii) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the case of a minor boy of 16 years old who was riding the vehicle and caused the accident, this proviso is not applicable so as to say that terms and conditions of the Insurance Company are violated.”
The Court added that where a minor boy under the age of 16 years cannot be said to be a qualified person to apply for driving licence, it cannot also be categorized that he is not duly licenced so as to come within the ambit of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (2) Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) when a minor boy of 16 years old inherently is not a qualified person so as to apply for driving licence.
“Coming to the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it is seen from the records that the deceased was aged 61 years at the time of accident. In the absence any proof of income, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.5,000/- p.m. The claimants are wife and two children. Therefore, 1/3rd of the amount will have to be deducted towards personal expenses. The appropriate multiplier is '7'. If the amount is calculated towards loss of dependency, it works out to Rs.2,79,972/- (Rs.5,000x2/3rdx7x12)”, it said.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, exonerated the Insurance Company of the liability to pay compensation to the claimants, and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2,56,000/- to Rs. 4,44,972/-.
Cause Title- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bibi Nafisa and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:19292)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates C.R. Ravi Shankar and K. Suryanarayana Rao.
Respondents: Advocate Nagaraja Hegde
