Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed by the original claimants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Rajendra Kothari, challenging the Judgment and Award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P. No.19/2016, whereby the Tribunal dismissed their claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The facts of the case are that on 19.12.2015 at about 1.45 p.m., the deceased Rajendra Kothari was a pillion rider on a motorcycle ridden by Niraj Kothari on Nagar-Solapur road towards Karmala. When they reached near Kishor Hotel at village Mahi Jalgaon, their motorcycle was dashed by another motorcycle bearing No.MH 16/BB9351 ridden by Balasaheb Hanuman Korde, which came from the opposite direction at high speed. As a result, both the rider and the pillion rider fell down, and the deceased sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to City Care Hospital, Ahmednagar, but succumbed to the injuries. An FIR was lodged by Niraj Kothari, and an offence was registered against Balasaheb. The claimants contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of Balasaheb. The deceased was 55 years old and had a commission agent shop in Market Yard at Mirajgaon, earning Rs.30,000 to Rs.35,000 per month. The claimants sought compensation from respondent No.1, the owner of the offending motorcycle, and respondent No.2, the insurer. The respondents filed written statements denying the claim. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider was also negligent, i.e., contributory negligence, without any evidence to support such finding. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Tribunal erred in law as there was no material to show that the rider was negligent. The accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the offending motorcycle. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and award and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the quantum of compensation, directing the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh within six months.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Contributory Negligence - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground of contributory negligence of the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider, without any evidence to support such finding. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in law as there was no material to show that the rider was negligent. The accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the offending motorcycle. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of contributory negligence without any evidence to support such finding.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and award, and remanded the matter back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for fresh consideration on the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal was directed to decide the claim petition afresh within six months.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- contributory negligence
- burden of proof
- negligence
- compensation
- legal heirs
