Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajendra Maruti Pawar, a 30-year-old tailor, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident on 22.06.2007. He was travelling in a jeep (MH 24/F 3235) driven by respondent No. 3 when a tempo (MH 24/A-2831) driven by respondent No. 1 collided with it due to rash and negligent driving by both drivers. The claimant suffered grievous injuries leading to permanent disability, rendering him unable to work. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, partly allowed the petition, awarding Rs. 3,13,000/- with proportionate costs, holding respondents No. 1 and 2 (driver and owner of tempo) liable for 20% and respondents No. 3 and 4 (driver and owner of jeep, and insurer of tempo) liable for 80%. The claimant appealed for enhancement. The High Court considered the evidence, including medical reports showing 40% permanent disability, and the claimant's income of Rs. 5,000 per month. The court found the compensation inadequate and enhanced it to Rs. 5,00,000/- by increasing the amount for loss of earning capacity and adding medical expenses. However, the court upheld the apportionment of liability between the joint tortfeasors, noting that the claimant could recover the entire amount from any of them. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation for Permanent Disability - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claimant, a 30-year-old tailor, sustained grievous injuries in a collision between two vehicles, resulting in permanent disability - Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,13,000/- with 20% liability on one driver and 80% on the other - High Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 5,00,000/- considering loss of earning capacity and medical expenses, but upheld the apportionment of liability as joint tortfeasors (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was just and proper, and whether the apportionment of liability between the drivers of the two vehicles was correct.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,13,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The apportionment of liability between respondents No. 1 and 2 (20%) and respondents No. 3 and 4 (80%) is upheld. The enhanced amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- Compensation for permanent disability
- Apportionment of liability between joint tortfeasors
- Enhancement of compensation
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 49
First Appeal No. 930 of 2011
Mr. S.S. Manale for Appellant, Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande for Respondent No. 4
Rajendra S/o Maruti Pawar
Vikas S/o Pandurang Hogale, Sharad S/o Annarao Pawar, Tatyarao S/o Ratan Rathod, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (original claimant) sought enhancement of compensation from Rs. 3,13,000/- to a higher amount.
Filing Reason
Claimant sustained grievous injuries in a collision between two vehicles due to rash and negligent driving, resulting in permanent disability and loss of earning capacity.
Previous Decisions
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, partly allowed claim petition No. 28/2008, awarding Rs. 3,13,000/- with proportionate costs, holding respondents No. 1 and 2 liable for 20% and respondents No. 3 and 4 liable for 80%.
Issues
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper?
Whether the apportionment of liability between the drivers of the two vehicles was correct?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the compensation was inadequate considering his permanent disability and loss of earning capacity.
Respondent No. 4 (Insurance Company) supported the Tribunal's award.
Ratio Decidendi
In a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the court must assess just compensation considering the claimant's age, income, permanent disability, and medical expenses. Joint tortfeasors are liable jointly and severally, and the claimant can recover the entire amount from any of them; apportionment between them does not affect the claimant's right.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appellant/Original Claimant was 30 year old tailor, carrying on his business under the name and style 'Raj Tailors' and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month.
Both the drivers had lost control and collided with each other, as result of which the claimant sustained grievous injury.
The compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,13,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Procedural History
The claimant filed Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 28/2008 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, which was partly allowed on an unspecified date. The claimant then filed First Appeal No. 930 of 2011 before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, seeking enhancement. The appeal was reserved on 11th July 2019 and pronounced on 29th July 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 166
