The Calcutta High Court has held that the mere fact that 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 further emphasized that the contribution made by a homemaker to her family is invaluable and cannot be measured merely in monetary terms.Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury partly allowed an appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and enhanced compensation payable for the death of a homemaker from Rs.9.17 lakh to Rs.11 lakh, while dismissing the insurer’s challenge to a separate award of Rs.2.10 crore granted for the death of her husband in the same accident.Accident Claimed Three Members Of A FamilyThe claims arose 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 Samanta was driving his vehicle towards Midnapore from Kolkata along with his wife Barnali Samanta Nandi and their two daughters. During the journey, another speeding lorry overtook their vehicle from the extreme left side, causing dust to rise and affecting visibility.At that moment, 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. The car collided with the rear side of the stationary vehicle.Shamit Samanta and his wife Barnali Samanta Nandi died on the spot. Their elder daughter Sinjini later succumbed to injuries in hospital, while their younger daughter Saanvi survived with serious injuries.Separate claim petitions were instituted in respect of the deaths of Barnali Samanta Nandi and Shamit Samanta.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9.17 lakh in respect of the death of Barnali Samanta Nandi and Rs.2,10,79,100/- in respect of the death of Shamit Samanta.Aggrieved, the insurer preferred appeals, while the claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement.Insurer Argued That Stationary Vehicle Could Not Be Held NegligentThe insurance company argued that the offending vehicle was stationary and therefore its driver could not be held responsible for the accident.It was further argued that the accident had occurred at about 9 a.m. in broad daylight and therefore visibility was not an issue. According to the insurer, the victim’s car had been driven at a high speed and the deceased himself had contributed to the accident.The insurer also questioned the income assessment and challenged the credibility of eyewitnesses.Rejecting the insurer’s principal argument that the offending vehicle was stationary, the High Court observed that merely because a vehicle was stationary does not mean that its owner or driver would stand absolved from liability.The Court held:“Mere plea that a vehicle was stationary does not absolve the owner of vehicle from liability if the said vehicle was parked in an improper place causing such accident.”The Court noted 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 charge-sheet submitted by the police also supported the claimants’ case and specifically recorded that the accident had occurred because the vehicle bearing registration number WB-33-5717 had been illegally parked on the road.Accordingly, the Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s finding that negligent parking of the vehicle caused the accident.The insurer also argued that some eyewitnesses were not summoned witnesses and had appeared at the request of the claimants.The Court, rejected the submission and observed that the credibility of witnesses cannot be discarded solely because they were not summoned witnesses.The Court held that if their evidence inspires confidence, it can be relied upon. It further noted that one of the eyewitnesses had been named in the police charge-sheet and that the cross-examination established that the witnesses had actually seen the occurrence.Therefore, the Court affirmed the finding regarding negligent parking and rejected the insurer’s challenge.Homemaker’s Contribution Cannot Be Measured In MoneyWhile considering compensation for the death of Barnali Samanta Nandi, the Court reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.The Court observed:“The contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money.”The Court further reproduced the Supreme Court’s observations that a wife and mother remains in constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night and that the selfless services rendered by them cannot be equated with those of a domestic worker.Referring to the same judgment, the Court noted:“A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean etc. but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children.”The Court observed that though no amount can truly compensate for the loss suffered by family members upon the death of a homemaker, the compensation awarded should nevertheless be just and reasonable.While observing that the amount awarded by the Tribunal could not be described as meagre, Justice Chowdhury held that having regard to the status of the family and the responsibilities discharged by the deceased, compensation of ₹11 lakh would be just and reasonable.(Note: The Tribunal had assessed the notional income of the deceased homemaker at Rs.5,000 per month and awarded compensation of Rs.9.17 lakh.)Accordingly, the Court enhanced the compensation payable to the surviving minor daughter, together with interest at 6% per annum.In the connected appeal concerning the death of Shamit Samanta, the insurer challenged the finding of negligence and disputed the computation of income.The Court noted that the claimants had proved the income of the deceased by examining his employer and that the Tribunal had correctly applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.The claimants had sought enhancement by claiming filial consortium.However, the Court declined to interfere and observed that considering the quantum already awarded and the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi, no further enhancement was warranted.Accordingly, the Court dismissed the insurer’s appeal and the cross-objection filed by the claimants and affirmed the compensation of Rs.2,10,79,100/- awarded by the Tribunal.While partly allowing the appeal relating to the death of Barnali Samanta Nandi, the High Court directed Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.11 lakh with interest. It simultaneously dismissed the challenge to the award passed in respect of Shamit Samanta and affirmed the compensation of Rs.2.10 crore awarded to his legal heirs.F.M.A. 527 of 2025 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Saanvi Samanta & Anr.For the Appellant/Insurance Company in FMA 527/2025, FMA 1421/2024andRespondent/Insurance Company COT 8/2025, COT 9 of 2025: Mrs. Sucharita Paul, Adv. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mandal, Adv. For the Appellant/Claimants in COT 8/2025, COT 9 of 2025 and Respondent/Claimants FMA 527/2025, FMA. 1421/2024(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
