Bombay High Court Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation Due to Contributory Negligence. Deceased Motorcyclist Found 50% Negligent for Collision with Tata Magic, Reducing Claimants' Award Proportionately Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 116
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present appeal was filed by M/s Shriram Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of the Tata Magic vehicle, challenging the judgment and award dated 06.01.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad in M.A.C.P. No.112 of 2012. The Tribunal had allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents (original claimants), who are the widow, minor children, and parents of the deceased Dhanaji Ram Marekar. The case of the claimants was that on 27.05.2011 at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing No.MH 13/U9013 on Solapur Naldurg Highway near village Dhangarwadi, when a Tata Magic bearing No.MH 13/B2719 coming from the opposite direction at high speed dashed against him. The deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to them the next day at Balwant Hospital, Solapur. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the Tata Magic. The insurance company filed a written statement denying the accident and negligence. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, held the driver of the Tata Magic solely negligent and awarded compensation of Rs.6,72,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. The insurance company appealed, contending that the deceased was equally negligent as he was riding on the wrong side of the road and that the compensation was excessive. The High Court examined the evidence, including the spot panchnama and the fact that no independent witness was examined. The Court noted that the accident occurred on a highway and both vehicles were coming from opposite directions. The Court found that the deceased motorcyclist was equally negligent as he failed to keep a proper lookout and was partly responsible for the collision. Consequently, the Court apportioned liability at 50% each. The Court upheld the Tribunal's assessment of income at Rs.6,000 per month, deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses, and multiplier of 15. However, due to contributory negligence, the compensation was reduced by half. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the award to Rs.3,36,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The insurance company was directed to pay the reduced amount within six weeks.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - Deceased motorcyclist dashed by Tata Magic from opposite direction - Both drivers equally negligent as accident occurred on highway and no independent witness examined - Held that Tribunal erred in fixing 100% negligence on Tata Magic driver; liability apportioned at 50% each (Paras 8-12).

B) Motor Accident Claims - Quantum of Compensation - Income Assessment - Deceased aged 36 years, agriculturist with additional income from jaggery and milk business - Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.6,000 per month - Held that income assessment was proper and no interference required (Paras 13-14).

C) Motor Accident Claims - Deduction for Personal Expenses - Deceased married with two children - 1/3rd deduction applied - Held that deduction is correct as per Sarla Verma (Paras 15-16).

D) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Age of deceased 36 years - Multiplier of 15 applied - Held that multiplier is appropriate (Paras 17-18).

E) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Reduction of Compensation - Due to 50% contributory negligence of deceased, compensation reduced by half - Held that claimants entitled to 50% of the computed compensation (Paras 19-20).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the Tata Magic solely negligent and whether the compensation awarded was excessive.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The claimants are entitled to 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.3,36,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The insurance company to pay the amount within six weeks.

Law Points

  • Contributory negligence
  • Apportionment of liability
  • Motor accident compensation
  • Negligence of deceased
  • Insurance company liability
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (09) 9

First Appeal No.606 of 2019 with Civil Application No.3025 of 2019

2019-09-24

Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Mr. V.N. Upadhye for appellant, Mr. S.B. Choudhari for respondent Nos.1 to 3

M/s Shriram Insurance Company Ltd.

Vanita wd/o Dhanaji Marekar & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against award of compensation in motor accident claim

Remedy Sought

Insurance company sought reduction of compensation and reversal of finding of sole negligence

Filing Reason

Insurance company challenged the Tribunal's award holding it liable for full compensation

Previous Decisions

M.A.C.P. No.112 of 2012 allowed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad on 06.01.2017 awarding Rs.6,72,000/- with interest

Issues

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the Tata Magic solely negligent? Whether the compensation awarded is excessive?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the deceased was equally negligent as he was riding on the wrong side of the road and no independent witness was examined. Respondents argued that the accident was solely due to the rash driving of the Tata Magic driver and the Tribunal correctly assessed negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

In a motor accident claim, when both vehicles are coming from opposite directions and there is no independent witness, the court may apportion liability equally if both drivers are found negligent. The deceased motorcyclist's failure to keep proper lookout contributed to the accident, resulting in 50% contributory negligence.

Judgment Excerpts

The accident had taken place on the highway. Both the vehicles were coming from opposite direction. The deceased was riding the motorcycle. It was his duty to keep proper lookout. In the absence of any independent witness, it cannot be said that the driver of the Tata Magic was solely negligent. The deceased was equally negligent. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which appears to be just and proper.

Procedural History

The original claimants filed M.A.C.P. No.112 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad, which was allowed on 06.01.2017. The insurance company filed First Appeal No.606 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the award. The appeal was reserved on 05.08.2019 and pronounced on 24.09.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166, Section 168
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Partition Suit — Concurrent Findings of Possession and Title Upheld. Court holds that plaintiff proved his 1/3rd share in suit property based on prior partition and possession, and defendant fai...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Regular Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Confirms Plaintiff's 1/3rd Share in Ancestral Property. The court held that the first appellate court's concurrent findings of fact on the ancestral nature of the property ...