The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that affected family in a motor accident case can’t seek enhancement of compensation, if it had agreed on an amount before the motor accident claims tribunal (MACT).
“..once the quantum of compensation stood settled before the learned tribunal and the award itself came to be founded upon such mutual settlement, no ground is made out for interference in appellate jurisdiction merely for the enhancement of the amount so accepted. The appellants, having consented to the quantum before the learned tribunal, cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate by accepting the award on agreed terms and thereafter questioning the same by way of the present appeal,” the bench of justice Amarinder Singh Grewal said while dismissing an appeal from a Sonepat resident.
The appeal was from a family who had lost their 13-year-old child in an accident caused by a tractor on December 20, 1998. The MACT in Sonepat awarded a compensation of ₹60,000 on August 3, 2001.
The family in their appeal filed in 2002 had contended that tribunal recorded a finding that accident had occurred entirely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver, Manjeet. The family had submitted that tribunal erred in awarding a grossly inadequate and nominal compensation The tribunal failed to consider that the boy was exceptionally bright and completely overlooked the economic impact on the family.
{{/usCountry}}The family in their appeal filed in 2002 had contended that tribunal recorded a finding that accident had occurred entirely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver, Manjeet. The family had submitted that tribunal erred in awarding a grossly inadequate and nominal compensation The tribunal failed to consider that the boy was exceptionally bright and completely overlooked the economic impact on the family.
{{/usCountry}}The court noted that the claim petition was filed only against the private respondents and the offending vehicle was not admittedly insured. It also found that the family had not objected to paying of ₹60,000 to the claimants by the respondents though the family agreed for the settlement reluctantly.
It also found that the tribunal passed the order based on consensus and concession between the parties coupled with the fact that the offending vehicle lacked insurance coverage. The court said that nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that settlement was involuntarily or stood vitiated on any legally sustainable ground.
“Once the claimants themselves had consciously agreed before the tribunal to accept a lump- sum compensation of ₹60,000 in full and final settlement of their claims and award came to be passed on the strength of such consent, they cannot now be permitted to turn around and seek enhancement of the very same compensation,” the court recorded.