Case Note & Summary
The appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., challenged the judgment and award dated 1.4.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule, in Claim Petition No. 1489 of 2005. The claimant, Smt. Ratna Popat Patil, widow of deceased Popat Shivram Patil, sought compensation for the death of her husband in a road accident on 20.8.2005. The deceased, aged 60 years, was a retired M.Sc. (Agri.) graduate receiving a pension of Rs.14,000 per month. While on an evening walk on Sakri Road, an auto rickshaw bearing registration No. MH18/B7964, owned by respondent no.2 Prakash Shivram Patil and insured by the appellant, struck him from behind. He was taken to Civil Hospital and later to Ashta Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. The claimant alleged negligence by the auto rickshaw driver and claimed Rs.3,00,000 compensation, including Rs.50,000 for medical expenses. The owner did not file a written statement, and the insurance company contested the claim. The Tribunal, after evaluating evidence, held the driver solely negligent and awarded Rs.2,52,000 with interest at 6% per annum, applying a multiplier of 14 on the deceased's pension income of Rs.14,000 per month, deducting one-third for personal expenses, and adding Rs.3,000 for medical expenses. The insurance company appealed, arguing that the multiplier should be 9 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, since the deceased was 60 years old. The High Court agreed, noting that the multiplier must be based on the deceased's age, not the claimant's. The court recalculated the loss of dependency: monthly pension Rs.14,000, annual Rs.1,68,000, one-third deduction for personal expenses leaves Rs.1,12,000, multiplied by 9 gives Rs.10,08,000. Adding Rs.3,000 for medical expenses and Rs.5,000 for funeral expenses (as per Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403, though not cited), the total compensation was reduced to Rs.10,16,000. The court also awarded interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the award accordingly.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier Determination - Age of Deceased - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal applied multiplier of 14 for deceased aged 60 years, contrary to the settled principle in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 which prescribes multiplier of 9 for age group 56-60 years - Held that the multiplier must be based on the age of the deceased, not the claimant, and the award requires modification (Paras 8-10). B) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal held the driver of the auto rickshaw solely negligent; no evidence of contributory negligence by the deceased pedestrian - Held that the finding of negligence is based on evidence and does not warrant interference (Paras 6-7). C) Motor Accident Claims - Medical Expenses - Reimbursement - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claimant claimed Rs.50,000 towards medical expenses but produced bills only for Rs.3,000 - Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000 - Held that the award of medical expenses is proper and not excessive (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 14 instead of 9 based on the age of the deceased (60 years) and whether the compensation awarded was excessive.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The compensation is reduced to Rs.10,16,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The insurance company is directed to deposit the modified amount within eight weeks. The award stands modified accordingly.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Multiplier Determination
- Age of Deceased
- Sarla Verma v. DTC
- Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Compensation Calculation
- Contributory Negligence
- Medical Expenses
