Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim filed by the legal heirs of Baliram Hasnale, who died in a collision between his motorcycle and an auto rickshaw on 30 May 2010. The claimants sought compensation from the owner and driver of the auto rickshaw (appellants) and the insurer. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, held the auto rickshaw driver solely negligent and awarded Rs. 7,50,000/- with interest. Aggrieved, the owner and driver appealed, arguing contributory negligence by the deceased. The High Court examined the evidence, including the FIR and spot panchnama, which indicated that the deceased was riding without a helmet and on the wrong side of the road. The court found that both parties were equally negligent and apportioned liability 50:50. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, reducing the compensation payable by the appellants to 50% of the awarded amount, with the insurer liable to pay that reduced sum.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Deceased motorcyclist was riding without helmet and on the wrong side of the road; auto rickshaw driver also drove rashly - Both parties equally responsible for the accident - Held that contributory negligence of deceased must be considered and compensation reduced proportionately (Paras 8-12).
B) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Quantum - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,50,000/- with interest - On appeal, court reduced compensation by 50% due to contributory negligence - Held that claimants entitled to 50% of the awarded amount (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the auto rickshaw driver solely negligent and in awarding compensation without considering contributory negligence of the deceased motorcyclist.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. The finding of contributory negligence is upheld. The appellants are liable to pay 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The award is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence
- Motor accident compensation
- Rash and negligent driving
- Apportionment of liability
- Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (08) 44
First Appeal No. 483 of 2013
Mr. S.N. Pagare for Appellants, Mr. S.P. Urgunde for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Ms. Sayali S. Tekale h/f Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar for Respondent No. 5
Peniel Children Home and Ramesh S/o Shankar Suryawanshi
Godawari w/o Baliram Hasnale, Pradeep S/o Baliram Hasnale, Prashant S/o Baliram Hasnale, Trivenibai W/o Babarao Hasnale, and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition for compensation due to death in a motor vehicle accident.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (owner and driver of auto rickshaw) sought reduction of compensation on ground of contributory negligence by deceased.
Filing Reason
Appellants aggrieved by Tribunal's finding of sole negligence on auto rickshaw driver and award of full compensation.
Previous Decisions
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, awarded Rs. 7,50,000/- with interest to claimants, holding auto rickshaw driver solely negligent.
Issues
Whether the deceased motorcyclist was contributorily negligent in the accident.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be reduced due to contributory negligence.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the deceased was riding without helmet and on the wrong side of the road, contributing to the accident.
Claimants contended that the auto rickshaw driver was solely responsible for the accident.
Ratio Decidendi
Where both parties to a motor accident are equally negligent, liability for compensation must be apportioned equally. The Tribunal's failure to consider contributory negligence of the deceased motorcyclist was erroneous.
Judgment Excerpts
On 30.05.2010 during night hours deceased Baliram and his son-in-law were proceeding to the Railway Station at Latur on motor cycle.
Considering the evidence on record, it appears that the deceased was riding the motor cycle without helmet and on the wrong side of the road.
In my view, both the drivers are equally responsible for the accident.
Hence, the appeal is partly allowed.
Procedural History
Claim petition filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, which awarded compensation. Appellants filed First Appeal No. 483 of 2013 before Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. Judgment reserved on 19/07/2022 and pronounced on 26/08/2022.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Various sections (not specified)
