Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident that occurred on 22.05.2012 involving a Tata 407 vehicle (MH-27/C-230) and an autorikshaw (MH-27/C-6242). The accident resulted in the death of Mangala and Nilesh, who were passengers in the autorikshaw. The claimants, Manoharrao Devidaspant Bharti (husband/father), Harsha Manoharrao Bharti (daughter), and Suvarna Manoharrao Bharti (daughter), filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati. The Tribunal, by judgment and award dated 01.08.2018 in MACP Nos. 250/2012 and 249/2012, held the driver of the Tata 407 solely negligent and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for the death of Mangala and Rs. 6,00,000 for the death of Nilesh, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The insurer, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., appealed against the awards, contending that the autorikshaw driver was also negligent and that the compensation was excessive. The High Court analyzed the evidence, including the spot panchnama and the testimony of witnesses. The court noted that the Tata 407 driver attempted to overtake the autorikshaw from the wrong side, but the autorikshaw driver also failed to keep a proper lookout and turned without signaling. The court concluded that both drivers were equally negligent and apportioned liability 50:50. Consequently, the court reduced the compensation payable by the insurer by 50%, while upholding the quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal. The appeals were partly allowed, and the awards were modified accordingly.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court considered whether the driver of the Tata 407 was solely negligent or whether the autorikshaw driver also contributed to the accident. The court found that the Tata 407 driver attempted to overtake the autorikshaw from the wrong side, but the autorikshaw driver also failed to keep a proper lookout and turned without signaling. Held that both drivers were equally negligent, and liability was apportioned 50:50. (Paras 5-10) B) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Quantum - Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court examined the calculation of compensation for the death of Mangala and Nilesh. The Tribunal had awarded compensation based on the income of the deceased and applied a multiplier. The court upheld the multiplier and dependency calculation but reduced the overall compensation by 50% due to contributory negligence. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the Tata 407 solely negligent and in awarding compensation without considering contributory negligence of the autorikshaw driver.
Final Decision
The appeals are partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 01.08.2018 in MACP Nos. 250/2012 and 249/2012 are modified to the extent that the liability of the appellant insurance company is reduced to 50% of the awarded amount. The claimants are entitled to recover the remaining 50% from the owner of the autorikshaw. The awards are modified accordingly.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- Section 173
- Apportionment of liability
- Negligence in overtaking
