Case Note & Summary
The case involves four first appeals filed by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. against the common judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, in respect of the same accident. The accident occurred on 22nd July 2016 involving a truck and a motorcycle, resulting in the death of two persons and injuries to others. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month and holding the driver of the truck solely negligent. The Insurance Company appealed, challenging the quantum of compensation and the finding of negligence. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the Tribunal had erred in fixing the income without any evidence and reduced it to Rs. 4,500/- per month. It also held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both parties and apportioned liability equally. The court modified the awards accordingly, reducing the compensation amounts. The appeals were partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Income Proof - The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month without any evidence, which was held to be arbitrary. The High Court reduced the notional income to Rs. 4,500/- per month based on the nature of work as a labourer. (Paras 10-12)
B) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Contributory Negligence - The Tribunal held the driver of the insured vehicle solely negligent without considering the possibility of contributory negligence by the deceased. The High Court found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both parties and apportioned liability equally. (Paras 13-15)
C) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - The Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 for the age group of 25-30 years, which was upheld by the High Court as per the settled law in Sarla Verma v. DTC. (Para 16)
D) Motor Accident Claims - Deduction for Personal Expenses - The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses for a married deceased, which was upheld by the High Court. (Para 17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased and in attributing negligence to the driver of the insured vehicle without proper evidence.
Final Decision
The appeals are partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified. The income of the deceased is reduced to Rs. 4,500/- per month. The finding of sole negligence is set aside and contributory negligence is apportioned equally. The awards are reduced accordingly. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the modified compensation within six weeks.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Compensation
- Negligence
- Income Proof
- Contributory Negligence
- Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (06) 138
First Appeal No. 1385 of 2018 with First Appeal No. 1400 of 2018, First Appeal No. 15 of 2019, First Appeal No. 1222 of 2019
Mrs. M. S. Naik for appellant, Shri R. J. Kankale for respondent no. 1 in FA 1385/2018, for respondent nos. 1 and 2 in FA 1400/2018 and for respondent nos. 1 to 4 in FA 15/2019, None for respondents in FA 1222/2019
The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
Kisan Raghuji Zalwade and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeals against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation for death and injuries in a motor vehicle accident.
Remedy Sought
The appellant Insurance Company sought reduction of compensation and setting aside of the finding of sole negligence against the insured vehicle driver.
Filing Reason
The Insurance Company challenged the quantum of compensation and the finding of negligence by the Tribunal.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, had awarded compensation to the claimants, fixing income of deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month and holding the truck driver solely negligent.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month without any evidence?
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the insured vehicle solely negligent without considering contributory negligence?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the income of the deceased was not proved and the Tribunal arbitrarily fixed it at Rs. 6,000/- per month.
The appellant argued that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased motorcyclist and the Tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory negligence.
The respondents argued that the Tribunal correctly assessed the income and negligence based on the evidence on record.
Ratio Decidendi
In motor accident claims, the income of the deceased must be proved by evidence; in the absence of evidence, notional income should be assessed reasonably. Negligence must be determined based on the evidence; if both parties are negligent, contributory negligence should be apportioned.
Judgment Excerpts
The Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month. There is no evidence on record to show the income of the deceased. Hence, the notional income of the deceased is required to be assessed.
The accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers. Hence, the contributory negligence is required to be apportioned.
Procedural History
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, passed awards in various claim petitions arising from the same accident. The Insurance Company filed four first appeals before the High Court challenging the awards. The High Court heard all appeals together and passed a common judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166
