Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.777/1997, whereby the claimants (parents and elder brother of the deceased) were awarded compensation of Rs.6,38,000/- for the death of Rashi, a 24-year-old woman who had recently passed her MBBS examination and was undergoing internship. The accident occurred on 21.7.2000 on Ghat Road, Nagpur, when Rashi was riding pillion on a motorcycle driven by her brother. A State Transport bus (bearing registration No. MH-31-8211) coming from the opposite direction dashed against the motorcycle, causing Rashi to sustain injuries and die on the spot. The driver of the bus was charge-sheeted. The appellant, the Divisional Controller of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), Nagpur, resisted the claim petition primarily on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver. The Tribunal, after assessing evidence, found the bus driver negligent. It assumed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,32,000/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 7, and awarded Rs.6,38,000/-. The appellant challenged both the finding of negligence and the quantum. The respondents supported the award. The High Court framed two issues: (A) whether the finding of negligence is supported by evidence, and (B) whether the quantum is correct. On issue (A), the Court held that the Tribunal's finding was based on oral evidence of an eyewitness and the fact that the bus driver was charge-sheeted, and thus no interference was warranted. On issue (B), the Court noted that the deceased had no actual income at the time of death as she was an intern. The Tribunal's assumption of Rs.1,32,000/- per annum was based on future prospects but without any evidence. The Court held that in the absence of evidence, a notional income of Rs.60,000/- per annum should be taken. Applying a multiplier of 11 (as per Sarla Verma v. DTC) and deducting 50% towards personal expenses (since the deceased was unmarried), the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.3,30,000/-. Adding Rs.1,20,000/- under conventional heads (loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, etc.), the total compensation was reduced to Rs.4,50,000/-. The appeal was partly allowed, and the award was modified accordingly.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Appreciation of Evidence - Tribunal's finding of negligence against bus driver based on oral evidence of eyewitness and criminal charge-sheet - Held that the finding is supported by evidence and does not warrant interference (Paras 7-8). B) Motor Accident Claims - Quantum of Compensation - Assessment of Income - Deceased was an MBBS intern with no actual income - Tribunal assumed annual income of Rs.1,32,000 based on future prospects - Held that in absence of evidence, income should be assessed notionally at Rs.60,000 per annum considering the deceased's qualifications and potential (Paras 9-10). C) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Deceased aged 24 years, unmarried - Tribunal applied multiplier of 7 - Held that multiplier of 11 is appropriate as per Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Para 11). D) Motor Accident Claims - Deduction for Personal Expenses - Deceased unmarried - Tribunal deducted 1/3rd - Held that deduction of 50% is correct as per Sarla Verma (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the finding of negligence against the bus driver is supported by evidence; whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is correct.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. The finding of negligence is upheld. The compensation is reduced from Rs.6,38,000/- to Rs.4,50,000/-. The award is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Negligence in motor accident
- assessment of income for deceased medical intern
- multiplier for young unmarried deceased
- deduction for personal expenses
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
