Case Note & Summary
The appellants, legal representatives of the deceased Anil Yadav, filed a first appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 19th October 2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thane in MACP No. 933/11. The deceased, aged 37 years, was a motorcyclist who died in a collision with a motor tempo (MH-08-H-3533) on 25th August 2011. The Tribunal computed the total compensation at Rs.2,58,44,336/- but awarded only Rs.1,03,38,144/- after finding the deceased 60% contributorily negligent. The appellants contended that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo driver, as the tempo hit the deceased from behind. The respondents, including the owner and insurer, did not challenge the award. The High Court, after hearing counsel, held that the Tribunal erred in its finding of contributory negligence. The court noted that the evidence, including the FIR and panchnama, indicated that the tempo struck the deceased from behind, and the driver of the tempo was charged under the Indian Penal Code. The burden to prove contributory negligence lay on the respondents, which they failed to discharge. Consequently, the court set aside the finding of contributory negligence and held the tempo driver solely negligent. On quantum, the court applied the multiplier of 18 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, added 50% future prospects to the deceased's income of Rs.1,50,000/- per annum (as per income tax returns), deducted 1/4th for personal expenses, and awarded Rs.2,58,44,336/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Contributory Negligence - Burden of Proof - In a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the burden to prove contributory negligence lies on the party alleging it. The Tribunal's finding of 60% contributory negligence on the deceased was set aside as the evidence showed the tempo hit the deceased from behind, indicating sole negligence of the tempo driver. (Paras 1-10) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Computation of Compensation - Multiplier and Future Prospects - For a deceased aged 37 years, the appropriate multiplier is 18 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC. Future prospects of 50% should be added to the income as the deceased was self-employed and below 40 years. Deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses is correct as there are four dependents. (Paras 11-20) C) Motor Vehicles Act - Interest Rate - The claimants are entitled to interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, as per the consistent view of the Supreme Court. (Para 21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the deceased 60% contributorily negligent and in awarding only 40% of the computed compensation.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 19th October 2016 is modified. The finding of contributory negligence is set aside. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,58,44,336/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence
- burden of proof
- rash and negligent driving
- multiplier method
- future prospects
- deduction for personal expenses
- interest rate
