Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed by the Divisional Controller, N.E. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, challenging the judgment and award dated 26-03-2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, in M.A.C.P. No. 222 of 2009. The respondents, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Shivaji Dattatray Shingare, had filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of Shivaji in a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred on 15-06-2009 when the deceased was riding a motorcycle and was hit by a bus owned by the appellant corporation. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 6,50,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum. The appellant contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of its driver but due to the negligence of the deceased himself. The court examined the evidence on record, including the testimony of the claimant's witnesses and the police papers. The court found that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence and held that the bus driver was negligent. The court also upheld the quantum of compensation, noting that the multiplier of 13 was correctly applied based on the age of the deceased. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Burden of Proof - The appellant, a State Road Transport Corporation, challenged the award of compensation on the ground that the accident was not due to negligence of its driver. The court held that the burden to prove negligence lies on the claimant, but in this case, the claimants had discharged the burden by adducing evidence of the manner of accident. The Tribunal's finding of negligence was based on the evidence of the claimant's witnesses and the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the appellant. (Paras 1-10) B) Motor Accident Claims - Quantum of Compensation - Multiplier - The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 13 based on the age of the deceased (45 years) as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court held that the multiplier was correctly applied and no interference was warranted. (Paras 11-15) C) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - The appellant argued that the deceased was negligent in driving his motorcycle. The court found no evidence to support this claim and held that the appellant failed to prove contributory negligence. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in holding the appellant liable for negligence and in awarding compensation to the respondents?
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, dated 26-03-2015 in M.A.C.P. No. 222 of 2009 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Compensation
- Negligence
- Burden of Proof
- Contributory Negligence
- Quantum of Compensation
