The Calcutta High Court has established a significant precedent regarding vehicle liability in road accidents, holding that stationary vehicles parked in improper places can still be held negligent. According to reports from The Times of India, Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury ruled that merely because a vehicle was stationary at the time of an accident does not absolve its owner or insurer from liability if the vehicle had been negligently parked in an improper or unauthorized place. The Court emphasized that the contribution made by a homemaker to her family is invaluable and cannot be measured merely in monetary terms.
The case arose from a fatal road accident that occurred on April 16, 2022, near Harina Bus Stand on National Highway-6 under Kharagpur Police Station. As reported by The Times of India, Shamit Samanta was driving his vehicle towards Midnapore from Kolkata with his wife Barnali Samanta Nandi and their two daughters when a speeding lorry overtook their vehicle, causing dust to rise and affecting visibility. A mini-truck bearing registration number WB-33-5717 was standing in the middle of the highway without any signal and in a non-parking zone, causing the car to collide with its rear side. Shamit Samanta and his wife Barnali Samanta Nandi died on the spot, while their elder daughter Sinjini later succumbed to injuries in hospital, and their younger daughter Saanvi survived with serious injuries.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had initially awarded ₹9.17 lakh for the death of Barnali Samanta Nandi, with the Tribunal assessing her notional income at ₹5,000 per month. According to The Times of India, the High Court enhanced this compensation to ₹11 lakh, noting that the amount awarded by the Tribunal could not be described as meagre but was just and reasonable having regard to the status of the family and responsibilities discharged by the deceased. The Court reiterated principles from Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., stating that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited had argued that the offending vehicle was stationary and therefore its driver could not be held responsible for the accident. As reported by The Times of India, the insurer also questioned the income assessment and challenged the credibility of eyewitnesses. However, the High Court rejected these arguments, noting that the Tribunal had assigned cogent reasons for concluding that the driver of the mini-truck had parked the vehicle negligently in the middle of the road. The Court also observed that the credibility of witnesses cannot be discarded solely because they were not summoned witnesses, and affirmed the finding regarding negligent parking.
In the connected appeal concerning the death of Shamit Samanta, the High Court dismissed the insurer's challenge and affirmed the ₹2.10 crore compensation awarded by the Tribunal. According to The Times of India, the Court noted that the claimants had proved the income of the deceased by examining his employer and that the Tribunal had correctly applied principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The Court directed Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited to deposit the enhanced compensation of ₹11 lakh with interest for the surviving minor daughter, while simultaneously dismissing the challenge to the award passed in respect of Shamit Samanta and affirming the compensation of ₹2.10 crore awarded to his legal heirs.
