High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation Due to Lack of Proof of Income and Negligence. The court held that the Tribunal erred in fixing income of the deceased without evidence and in not considering contributory negligence.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 34
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal by the National Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Aurangabad in Claim Petition No.120 of 2007. The claimants, respondents 1 to 5, sought compensation for the death of Kailas Mamode in a vehicular accident on 31.07.2006 involving a bus owned by respondent No.6 and insured by the appellant. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,52,000/- with interest. The Insurance Company challenged the award on grounds of lack of proof of income and contributory negligence. The court found that the claimants did not produce any evidence of the deceased's income, and the Tribunal's assumption of Rs. 4,500/- per month was baseless. The court also noted that the deceased was crossing the road on a motorcycle and was hit by the bus, indicating contributory negligence. The court reduced the compensation by 50% for contributory negligence and reassessed the income notionally. The appeal was partly allowed, reducing the compensation amount.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation Assessment - Income Proof - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The claimants failed to produce any evidence regarding the income of the deceased. The Tribunal's assumption of income at Rs. 4,500/- per month was without any basis. Held that in the absence of proof, the income should be assessed on a notional basis as per the Second Schedule. (Paras 5-7)

B) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - The accident occurred when the deceased was crossing the road on a motorcycle and was hit by a bus. The Tribunal did not consider contributory negligence. Held that the deceased was equally negligent, and liability should be apportioned 50:50. (Paras 8-10)

C) Motor Accident Claims - Deduction for Personal Expenses - Multiplier - The Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 and deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses. Held that the multiplier should be 13 as per the age of the deceased (35 years) and deduction of 1/3rd is correct. (Paras 11-12)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the compensation amount and whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the awarded amount.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal partly allowed. Compensation reduced by 50% on account of contributory negligence. Income of deceased notionally assessed. Award modified accordingly.

Law Points

  • Motor Accident Claims
  • Compensation Assessment
  • Proof of Income
  • Contributory Negligence
  • Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act
  • 1988
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (01) 1

First Appeal No.718 of 2010 with CA/11062/2015

2019-01-14

P.R. Bora, J.

Shri Atul B. Gatne for Appellant, Shri P.F. Patni for Respondent Nos.1 to 5

National Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt. Rupali Kailas Mamode & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Remedy Sought

Insurance Company sought reduction of compensation awarded to claimants

Filing Reason

Insurance Company challenged the award on grounds of lack of proof of income and contributory negligence

Previous Decisions

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Aurangabad awarded Rs. 5,52,000/- in Claim Petition No.120 of 2007 on 12.10.2009

Issues

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the income of the deceased without any evidence? Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering contributory negligence of the deceased?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that claimants failed to prove income of deceased and that deceased was negligent. Claimants contended that the award was just and proper.

Ratio Decidendi

In motor accident claims, income must be proved by evidence; in absence, notional income as per Second Schedule may be considered. Contributory negligence must be apportioned if both parties are at fault.

Judgment Excerpts

The claimants have not produced any evidence to show the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has not considered the aspect of contributory negligence. In the absence of any evidence, the income of the deceased is required to be assessed on notional basis.

Procedural History

Claim Petition No.120 of 2007 filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad, decided on 12.10.2009 awarding compensation. Insurance Company filed First Appeal No.718 of 2010 before High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation Due to Lack of Proof of Income and Negligence. The court held that the Tribunal erred in fixing income of the deceased without evide...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Against EPF Appellate Tribunal Order Dismissing Appeal on Limitation Grounds. Sick Industrial Company's Appeal Under Section 7I of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Held Maintaina...