Case Note & Summary
The appellants, the widow and two sons of the deceased Shamrao Bhosale, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of Shamrao in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.05.2002. The deceased was a passenger in a jeep bearing registration No. MH-25/3640 when a truck bearing registration No. ABT-2946 collided with the jeep from the opposite direction. The deceased suffered fatal injuries. The claimants contended that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of both the truck and jeep drivers. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad, in M.A.C.P. No. 173/2002, held that both drivers were equally negligent and apportioned liability 50:50. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,02,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, directing the insurers of both vehicles to pay 50% each. Aggrieved by the quantum and apportionment, the claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court examined the evidence, including the spot panchnama and police report, and found that the truck driver was primarily negligent as the truck was on the wrong side of the road. The court apportioned liability 75% on the truck driver and 25% on the jeep driver. On quantum, the court applied the multiplier of 13 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, added 15% for future prospects, deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses, and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,40,000/- per annum, resulting in Rs. 18,20,000/-. Adding Rs. 70,000/- for conventional heads, the total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 18,90,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The court directed the insurer of the truck (respondent no.2) to pay 75% and the insurer of the jeep (respondent no.4) to pay 25% of the award.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Apportionment of Liability - Joint Tortfeasors - Degree of Negligence - The court held that where two vehicles are involved in a collision, liability must be apportioned based on the degree of negligence of each driver, not necessarily equally. In this case, the truck driver was found 75% negligent and the jeep driver 25% negligent, based on the evidence of the spot panchnama and the fact that the truck was on the wrong side. (Paras 8-10) B) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Multiplier - Deduction for Personal Expenses - The court held that for a deceased aged 50 years, the appropriate multiplier is 13 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC. The deduction for personal expenses should be 1/3rd as the deceased had three dependents. Future prospects of 15% should be added as the deceased was a government teacher aged 50. (Paras 11-13) C) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Composite Negligence - The court distinguished between contributory negligence (where the claimant is negligent) and composite negligence (where two tortfeasors are negligent). In composite negligence, the claimant can recover from any joint tortfeasor, but the tortfeasors can seek contribution inter se based on their degree of fault. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in apportioning liability equally between the drivers of two vehicles involved in a collision, and whether the compensation awarded to the claimants was just and proper.
Final Decision
The appeal was partly allowed. The impugned award was modified. The total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 18,90,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The liability was apportioned 75% on the insurer of the truck (respondent no.2) and 25% on the insurer of the jeep (respondent no.4). The insurers were directed to pay the amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Apportionment of liability between joint tortfeasors
- contributory negligence
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 Section 173
- 1988 Section 166
- 1988 Section 168
