Bombay High Court Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case — Reduces Compensation Due to Contributory Negligence of Deceased. Deceased pedestrian held 50% contributorily negligent for crossing highway without care, reducing insurer's liability under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from a motor accident claim filed by the legal heirs of Devidas Gujarathi, who died in a road accident on 28th September 2012. The deceased was a pedestrian crossing the Mumbai-Agra National Highway near Dharmabad when he was hit by a bus owned by M/s Vaneeta Travels and insured by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 18,22,000/- with interest, holding the bus driver solely negligent. The insurance company appealed, arguing contributory negligence by the deceased and excessive compensation. The High Court analyzed the evidence, including the spot panchnama and photographs, and found that the deceased crossed the highway without looking for oncoming traffic, contributing to the accident. The court apportioned negligence equally at 50% each. On quantum, the court noted the deceased was 55 years old, earning Rs. 6,000 per month as per the Tribunal's finding, and applied multiplier of 11 instead of 13, deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses. The total compensation was recalculated as Rs. 5,28,000/- (loss of dependency) plus Rs. 70,000/- under conventional heads, totaling Rs. 5,98,000/-. After applying 50% contributory negligence, the insurer's liability was fixed at Rs. 2,99,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition. The appeal was partly allowed.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Compensation - Contributory Negligence - Pedestrian Crossing Highway - Deceased pedestrian crossed a national highway without taking adequate precaution and was hit by a bus - Held that the deceased was 50% contributorily negligent, reducing the insurer's liability proportionately (Paras 10-15).

B) Motor Accident Compensation - Quantum of Compensation - Multiplier and Dependency - Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses - Held that the multiplier should be 11 based on age of deceased (55 years) and dependency should be calculated after deducting 1/3rd - Compensation reduced accordingly (Paras 16-20).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the deceased pedestrian was contributorily negligent in the accident and whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was excessive.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal partly allowed. The finding of contributory negligence is upheld at 50% each. Compensation recalculated as Rs. 5,98,000/-. After applying 50% contributory negligence, the insurer's liability is Rs. 2,99,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly.

Law Points

  • Contributory negligence
  • Apportionment of liability
  • Motor accident compensation
  • Negligence of pedestrian
  • Standard of care on highway
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (02) 76

First Appeal No.1069 of 2018 with Interim Application No.132 of 2021

2021-02-05

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Sadhana Devidas Gujarathi & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Remedy Sought

Insurance company sought reduction of compensation and finding of contributory negligence against deceased.

Filing Reason

Insurance company challenged the Tribunal's award holding bus driver solely negligent and awarding Rs. 18,22,000/- as compensation.

Previous Decisions

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 18,22,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition.

Issues

Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent in the accident. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant (Insurance Company) argued that the deceased crossed the highway without looking for traffic and was solely or contributorily negligent. Respondents (Claimants) argued that the bus driver was solely negligent as the accident occurred on a highway.

Ratio Decidendi

A pedestrian crossing a highway without taking adequate precaution is guilty of contributory negligence. The multiplier for a 55-year-old deceased is 11 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC. The compensation must be apportioned based on the degree of negligence.

Judgment Excerpts

The deceased was crossing the road from one side to the other. He ought to have looked for oncoming traffic before crossing. The spot panchnama shows the bus was on its correct side. Hence, the deceased contributed to the accident. Applying the multiplier of 11 as per Sarla Verma, the loss of dependency is Rs. 5,28,000/-. Adding Rs. 70,000/- under conventional heads, total compensation is Rs. 5,98,000/-.

Procedural History

Claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 18,22,000/-. Insurance company filed First Appeal No.1069 of 2018 before the High Court of Bombay. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 05/02/2021.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case — Reduces Compensation Due to Contributory Negligence of Deceased. Deceased pedestrian held 50% contributorily negligent for crossing highway without care, reducing in...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case Due to Inconsistent Victim Testimony and Lack of Medical Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 set aside as medical evidence did not support penetration and delay in FIR wa...