Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim for Death of 10-Year-Old Girl, Sets Aside Contributory Negligence Finding. Court holds that a child passenger cannot be held contributorily negligent and enhances compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 86
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, father and siblings of the deceased Savita, a 10-year-old girl, filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for her death in a motor vehicle accident on 27.4.1990. The accident involved an ST bus owned by the respondent Corporation and a tractor trolly. The Tribunal awarded Rs.51,800/- with 12% interest, but held that the deceased was contributorily negligent to the extent of 25%, reducing the liability of the Corporation to 75%. The appellants challenged the award, contending that the Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence to a child passenger and in computing compensation. The High Court analyzed the evidence, noting that the bus driver was solely negligent as the bus dashed against the oncoming tractor trolly. The court held that a child of 10 years cannot be held contributorily negligent as she had no control over the vehicle. On compensation, the court applied the multiplier method, taking notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum as per the Second Schedule, deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, applying multiplier of 15, and adding Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate, totaling Rs.1,05,000/-. The court modified the interest rate to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The appeal was partly allowed, enhancing compensation to Rs.1,05,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, and the respondent Corporation was directed to pay the entire amount.

Headnote

A) Motor Vehicles Act - Contributory Negligence - Child of 10 years - The Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence to a 10-year-old child passenger who had no control over the vehicle. The court held that the driver of the ST bus was solely negligent as the bus dashed against an oncoming tractor trolly. (Paras 5-7)

B) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Death of a child - The court applied the multiplier method based on the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum as per the Second Schedule, deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses, applied multiplier of 15, and added Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate, totaling Rs.1,05,000/-. (Paras 8-10)

C) Motor Vehicles Act - Interest - Rate of interest - The court awarded interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, modifying the Tribunal's rate of 12% per annum. (Para 11)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased child was contributorily negligent and in awarding inadequate compensation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The respondent Corporation is directed to pay the entire compensation amount.

Law Points

  • Contributory negligence cannot be attributed to a child of 10 years
  • Motor Vehicles Act
  • 1988 Section 166
  • Compensation for death of a child
  • Multiplier method for computing compensation
  • Interest rate on compensation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (10) 106

First Appeal No. 2100 of 2008

2019-10-03

Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai

Ms. Krutika Pokale i/b. A.M.Gokhale for the Appellant, Mr. C.M.Lokesh i/b. Mr. G.S.Hegde for the Respondent

Devappa Ganpat Maskar, Kum. Manisha Devappa Maskar, Kum. Shilpa Devappa Maskar

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against judgment and award of Claims Tribunal in a motor accident claim petition.

Remedy Sought

Enhancement of compensation and setting aside of contributory negligence finding.

Filing Reason

The Tribunal awarded inadequate compensation and wrongly attributed contributory negligence to the deceased child.

Previous Decisions

The Claims Tribunal, Satara in MACP No.413 of 1992 awarded Rs.51,800/- with 12% interest, holding 25% contributory negligence.

Issues

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased child was contributorily negligent. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the ST bus driver and that a child of 10 years cannot be held contributorily negligent. Respondent Corporation argued that the accident was caused by composite negligence of both drivers and that the Tribunal correctly apportioned liability.

Ratio Decidendi

A child of 10 years cannot be held contributorily negligent as she had no control over the vehicle. The multiplier method should be applied for computing compensation for death of a child, taking notional income as per the Second Schedule.

Judgment Excerpts

The Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased was contributorily negligent. A child of 10 years cannot be held guilty of contributory negligence. Considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 15 would be applicable.

Procedural History

The appellants filed MACP No.413 of 1992 before the Claims Tribunal, Satara, which awarded compensation on 20.3.1996. The appellants challenged the award by filing First Appeal No.2100 of 2008 before the Bombay High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Demolition of Unauthorized Structures in Gaothan Areas — Municipal Corporation's Action Upheld as Valid Exercise of Power Under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The court held th...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Partly Allows Appraisers' Challenge to Rotational Seniority; Upholds System for Appraisers, Strikes Down for Principal Appraisers. Rotational seniority between direct recruits and promotees in a mixed cadre did not violate Article 16(1)...