Case Note & Summary
The appellants, being the parents and minor brother of the deceased Jakir Tamboli, filed a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following his death in a motor vehicle accident on 19th June 1995. The accident occurred when the deceased was riding his motorcycle and was hit by a State Transport bus belonging to the respondent, which was driven rashly and negligently. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,08,000, rejecting substantial part of the claim. The appellants appealed against the award, contending that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased and in applying the multiplier. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of an independent witness, and found that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the bus driver. The court also noted that the deceased was a skilled worker earning Rs. 3,000 per month, as supported by documentary evidence. Applying the multiplier of 18, the court calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,24,000 and awarded the same, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition. The appeal was allowed, and the award was enhanced accordingly.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Contributory Negligence - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - The court held that the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the ST bus driver, and the deceased did not contribute to the accident. The Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence was set aside. (Paras 2-3)
B) Compensation - Assessment of Income - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - The court held that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500 per month without considering the documentary evidence showing his earning capacity. The income was enhanced to Rs. 3,000 per month. (Paras 3-4)
C) Compensation - Multiplier - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - The court applied the multiplier of 18 as per the age of the deceased (22 years) and awarded compensation accordingly, enhancing the total compensation from Rs. 1,08,000 to Rs. 3,24,000. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting substantial part of the claim for compensation and in assessing the income of the deceased and the multiplier.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 10th July 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara, is modified. The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,24,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. The amount already paid shall be deducted.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 173
- Compensation
- Negligence
- Contributory Negligence
- Multiplier
- Income Proof
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (05) 17
First Appeal No. 1960 of 2003
Mr. Prabhanjan Gujar for the Appellant, Mr. Gopal Krishna Shivram Hegde with Mr. C.M. Lokeshappa for the Respondent
Jafar Babulal Tamboli, Jubadabi Jafar Tamboli, Jamir Jafar Tamboli
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara, rejecting substantial part of the claim for compensation.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought enhancement of compensation from Rs. 1,08,000 to Rs. 3,60,000.
Filing Reason
The appellants were dissatisfied with the Tribunal's award which rejected substantial part of their claim.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara, passed an award on 10th July 2003, granting Rs. 1,08,000 as compensation.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding contributory negligence on the part of the deceased?
Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500 per month?
Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the ST bus driver, and the deceased did not contribute to the accident.
The appellants contended that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month as a skilled worker, supported by documentary evidence.
The respondent argued that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and that the compensation awarded was just and proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the ST bus driver, and the deceased did not contribute to the accident. The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 3,000 per month, and the multiplier of 18 was applied as per the age of the deceased (22 years). The compensation was enhanced accordingly.
Judgment Excerpts
By this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellants (original claimants) have impugned part of the judgment and award dated 10th July, 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Satara rejecting substantial part of the claims made by the appellants.
It was the case of the appellant that on 19th June, 1995, Jakir Tamboli who was son of the appellant no.1 was driving his motorcycle bike bearing No. MH-11-D-751 in normal speed with due and proper caution.
Procedural History
The appellants filed a claim petition on 12th February 1996 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara. The respondent filed a written statement on 15th August 1997. The Tribunal passed an award on 10th July 2003. The appellants filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 173
