The Calcutta High Court has held that the mere fact that a vehicle was parked at the time of the accident does not relieve its owner or insurer from liability if the vehicle was negligently parked in an inappropriate or unauthorized place. The Court further emphasized that the contribution made by a housewife to her family is invaluable and cannot be measured only in monetary terms.Justice Biswaroop Chaudhary partially allowed the appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd and increased the compensation payable for the death of a housewife from Rs 9.17 lakh to Rs 11 lakh, while rejecting the insurer’s challenge to a separate award of Rs 2.10 crore given for the death of her husband in the same accident.Three members of the same family died in the accidentThese claims arise out of a road accident that occurred on 16.04.2022 near Harina Bus Stand on National Highway-6 under Kharagpur (Local) Police Station.According to the claimants, Shamit Samant was driving his vehicle from Kolkata towards Midnapore along with his wife Barnali Samant Nandi and their two daughters. During the journey, another speeding lorry overtook his vehicle from the left side, causing dust and affecting visibility.At that time, a mini truck with registration number WB-33-5717 was parked in the middle of the highway without any signal and in a non-parking area. The car collided with the rear of a parked vehicle.Shamit Samant and his wife Barnali Samant Nandi died on the spot. His elder daughter Sinjini later died in the hospital, while his younger daughter Saanvi survived with serious injuries.Separate claim petitions were instituted in relation to the deaths of Barnali Samant Nandi and Shamit Samant.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs 9.17 lakh in respect of the death of Barnali Samant Nandi and Rs 2,10,79,100/- in respect of the death of Shamit Samant.Aggrieved, the insurer filed an appeal, while the claimants filed cross-objections demanding an increase.The insurer argued that a stationary vehicle cannot be held negligentlyThe insurance company argued that the offending vehicle was stationary and hence its driver could not be held responsible for the accident.It was further argued that the accident had occurred in broad daylight at around 9 am and hence visibility was not an issue. According to the insurer, the victim’s car was driven at high speed and the deceased himself contributed to the accident.The insurer also questioned the income assessment and challenged the credibility of the eyewitnesses.Rejecting the insurer’s main argument that the offending vehicle was stationary, the High Court said that merely because a vehicle was stationary, it does not mean that its owner or driver will be absolved of liability.The Court said:“The mere plea that a vehicle was parked does not absolve the owner of the vehicle from liability if the said vehicle was parked at an inappropriate place causing such an accident.”The Court said that the Tribunal had given strong reasons to conclude that the driver of the mini truck had parked the vehicle in the middle of the road negligently.The charge sheet submitted by the police also supported the claimants’ case and specifically recorded that the accident occurred because the vehicle with registration number WB-33-5717 was parked illegally on the road.Accordingly, the Court found no fault in the Tribunal’s finding that negligent parking of the vehicle caused the accident.The insurer also argued that some eyewitnesses were not called witnesses and appeared at the request of the claimants.The court rejected the argument and said that the credibility of the witnesses could not be rejected merely because they were not called as witnesses.The Court said that if their evidence inspires confidence, they can be trusted. It further said that the name of an eyewitness was included in the police charge sheet and through cross-examination it was established that the witnesses had indeed witnessed the incident.Therefore, the Court affirmed the findings regarding negligent parking and rejected the insurer’s challenge.The contribution of a housewife cannot be measured in money.The Court reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court while considering compensation for the death of Barnali Samant Nandi. Arun Kumar Aggarwal vs National Insurance Company Ltd.The Court said:“The contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be measured in money.”The Court reiterated the observations of the Supreme Court that a wife and mother is in constant presence of the family throughout the day and night and the selfless services rendered by her cannot be compared with the services of a domestic worker.Citing the same decision the Court said:“A housekeeper or maid may do household work such as cooking, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc. But she can never be a substitute for the wife/mother who serves her husband and children selflessly.”The Court said that although no amount of money can truly compensate for the loss suffered by the family members on the death of a housewife, the compensation awarded must be fair and reasonable.Noting that the amount awarded by the tribunal cannot be described as low, Justice Chaudhary said that keeping in mind the condition of the family and the responsibilities performed by the deceased, a compensation of ₹11 lakh would be fair and reasonable.(Note: The tribunal had estimated the deceased housewife’s income at Rs 5,000 per month and awarded compensation at Rs 9.17 lakh.)Accordingly, the Court enhanced the compensation payable to the surviving minor daughter along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.In the appeal relating to the death of Shamit Samant, the insurer challenged the finding of negligence and disputed the calculation of the proceeds.The Court held that the claimants had proved the deceased’s income by examining his employer and that the Tribunal had correctly applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi.The claimants had sought enhancement by claiming filial consortium.However, the Court declined to interfere and held that in view of the quantum already provided and the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi, no further enhancement is required.Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal of the insurer and the counter-objection filed by the claimants and confirmed the compensation of Rs.2,10,79,100/- awarded by the Tribunal.The High Court, while partially accepting the appeal related to the death of Barnali Samant Nandi, directed Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs 11 lakh along with interest. It also rejected the challenge to the award passed in respect of Shamit Samant and confirmed the compensation of Rs 2.10 crore awarded to his legal heirs.FMA 527 of 2025 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs. Saanvi Samanta and Ors.For the appellant/insurance company in FMA 527/2025, FMA 1421/2024 and respondent/insurance company in COT 8/2025, COT 9 of 2025: Smt. Sucharita Paul, Adv. Shri Jayant Kumar Mandal, Advisor. For the Appellant/Claimants in COT 8/2025, COT 9 of 2025 and the Respondent/Claimants in FMA 527/2025, FMA. 1421/2024(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra, is a Delhi-based lawyer practicing in the courts of Delhi NCR.)
