Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim filed under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The 1st to 4th Respondents (claimants) are the widow and children of the deceased Anupsingh Kartarsingh Dhatt, who died in a road accident on 19th September 1987 at about 11:30 p.m. while riding his scooter on Nehru Road. The deceased was a Subhedar (Junior Commissioned Officer) in the Defence Department. The accident occurred when a jeep owned by the Appellant (General Manager, Ammunition Factory, Khadki) and driven by the 5th Respondent (Vishnu Mahadeo Bhadale) dashed into the scooter. The claimants alleged that the jeep was driven rashly and negligently, on the wrong side. The 5th Respondent denied negligence and claimed the deceased lost control of his scooter. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune, held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the 5th Respondent and awarded compensation of Rs.1,75,000 with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing. The Appellant challenged the award, primarily on the ground that the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 16 instead of 13, given the deceased's age of 47 years. The High Court agreed, noting that as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the correct multiplier for a person aged 45-50 years is 13. The Court recalculated the compensation: annual dependency was Rs.12,000 (after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses from the deceased's salary of Rs.18,000 per annum), multiplied by 13, resulting in Rs.1,56,000, plus Rs.9,000 for loss of consortium and funeral expenses, totaling Rs.1,65,000. However, since the claimants did not cross-appeal, the Court reduced the award to Rs.1,45,000 (the amount claimed in the appeal) with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing till payment. The appeal was partly allowed, and the cross-objections were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Multiplier - Age of Deceased - The Tribunal applied multiplier of 16 for a deceased aged 47 years, whereas the correct multiplier as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is 13. The High Court held that the multiplier must be based on the age of the deceased, not the claimants, and reduced the compensation accordingly. (Paras 4-6) B) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Rash and Negligent Driving - The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the 5th Respondent. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the jeep was on the wrong side and the driver did not take sufficient care. (Paras 2-3) C) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - The 5th Respondent alleged contributory negligence by the deceased, but the Tribunal rejected this contention. The High Court affirmed, as there was no evidence to show that the deceased was negligent. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 16 instead of 13 based on the age of the deceased, and whether the compensation awarded was excessive.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified, reducing the compensation from Rs.1,75,000 to Rs.1,45,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. The cross-objections are dismissed.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1939
- Section 110A
- Compensation
- Multiplier
- Age of deceased
- Contributory negligence
- Rash and negligent driving
