Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed by the original claimants, Shaikh Gani and Jahirabi, parents of deceased Javed Gani Shaikh, challenging the dismissal of their claim petition (MACP No.97 of 2009) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad, dated 15-02-2012. The deceased was employed as a cleaner on a pick-up jeep bearing No.MH-10/K-8386. On 19-05-2008, while returning from Jalna to Kallam, the jeep driver drove rashly and negligently, causing the steering rod to break, the vehicle to go off the road, and dash against a tree. Javed sustained serious injuries, was treated at various hospitals, and ultimately succumbed to injuries on 24-12-2008. He was 19 years old, earning Rs.4,000 per month plus daily Bhatta of Rs.50. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.9,00,000 but restricted to Rs.6,00,000 for court fees. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect (broken steering rod) and not due to rash and negligent driving. The High Court framed the issue of whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition. The appellants argued that the Tribunal ignored evidence of negligence and that the driver could have avoided the accident. The respondents (owner and insurance company) supported the Tribunal's finding. The court analyzed the evidence, including FIR and panchanama, and held that the broken steering rod could have been avoided if the driver had been careful. The court found the Tribunal's finding perverse and set aside the dismissal. The court then assessed compensation: applying the multiplier of 18 (as per Sarla Verma v. DTC) to the notional income of Rs.4,000 per month (Rs.48,000 per annum), deducting 1/2 for personal expenses (as the deceased was a bachelor), resulting in loss of dependency of Rs.24,000 per annum, multiplied by 18 = Rs.4,32,000. Adding Rs.1,00,000 for loss of love and affection, Rs.50,000 for funeral expenses, and Rs.18,000 for medical expenses, total compensation was Rs.6,00,000. The court directed respondent No.2 (insurance company) to pay the amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, within two months.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Burden of Proof - The Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petition holding that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect (broken steering rod) and not due to rash and negligent driving, without considering that the driver could have avoided the accident if he had been careful. The burden of proof on the claimants was discharged by evidence of the accident and injuries. The court held that the Tribunal's finding was perverse and set aside the dismissal. (Paras 1-10) B) Motor Accident Claims - Insurance Liability - Third Party Risk - The insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner for compensation payable to third parties. Since the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. (Paras 11-15) C) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Quantum - The deceased was 19 years old, earning Rs.4,000 per month plus daily Bhatta of Rs.50. Applying the multiplier of 18 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, the loss of dependency is calculated. The court awarded Rs.6,00,000 as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect and not negligence, and whether the claimants are entitled to compensation.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and award of MACT, Osmanabad dated 15-02-2012 is set aside. Respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) is directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, within two months.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Negligence
- Contributory Negligence
- Burden of Proof
- Insurance Liability
- Compensation for Death
