Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 25.3.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satara in MACP No.414 of 1992. The appellants, being the husband and two minor daughters of the deceased Shakuntala, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.2,71,700/- for the death of Shakuntala in a motor vehicle accident on 26.4.1990. The deceased was traveling from Bombay to Kolhapur in an ST bus owned by the respondent Corporation when the bus dashed against an oncoming tractor trolley. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.71,936/- with interest at 12% per annum, but directed the respondent to pay only 75% of that amount (Rs.53,952/-) holding that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. The appellants challenged the award on the grounds that the finding of contributory negligence was erroneous, the multiplier applied was incorrect, the deduction for personal expenses was excessive, and no amount was awarded for future prospects and conventional heads. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the ST bus driver, as the bus was on the wrong side of the road. The Court held that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the deceased, who was a passenger. The Court also found that the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 12 instead of 16 as per the age of the deceased (32 years) and the settled law in Sarla Verma v. DTC. The deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses was held to be erroneous; the correct deduction is 1/4th as the deceased had three dependents. The Court further held that the Tribunal ought to have granted 40% addition towards future prospects as per Pranay Sethi, and adequate amounts under conventional heads. The High Court set aside the finding of contributory negligence and recalculated the compensation, awarding a total of Rs.10,76,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - The Tribunal erred in holding the deceased guilty of contributory negligence without any evidence of negligence on her part; the accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the ST bus driver. (Paras 7-10) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Computation of Compensation - Multiplier - The Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 12 instead of 16 as per the age of the deceased (32 years) and the settled law in Sarla Verma v. DTC. (Paras 11-13) C) Motor Vehicles Act - Computation of Compensation - Deduction for Personal Expenses - The Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased; as the deceased was a married woman with three dependents, the correct deduction is 1/4th. (Paras 14-15) D) Motor Vehicles Act - Computation of Compensation - Future Prospects - The Tribunal erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects; as per Pranay Sethi, 40% addition is warranted for self-employed persons aged below 40. (Paras 16-17) E) Motor Vehicles Act - Computation of Compensation - Conventional Heads - The Tribunal erred in not granting adequate amounts under conventional heads; as per Pranay Sethi, Rs.15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, and Rs.40,000 for loss of consortium are appropriate. (Paras 18-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding contributory negligence against the deceased and in computing compensation by applying an incorrect multiplier and making excessive deductions.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The respondent Corporation is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,76,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The finding of contributory negligence is set aside. The respondent is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- Section 173
- Contributory negligence
- Multiplier
- Deduction for personal expenses
- Future prospects
- Just compensation
