Bombay High Court Partly Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Due to Contributory Negligence of Deceased Auto-Rickshaw Driver. Deceased driver found 50% negligent, reducing compensation and interest rate under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 98
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by The Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award dated 31.7.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola, in Claim Petition No.119 of 2005, whereby compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- was granted jointly and severally against the appellant, tractor owner, and driver, with interest at 8% per annum. The accident occurred on 6.10.2004 when deceased Rajesh was driving an auto-rickshaw carrying three passengers. A tractor-trolley driven by Shrikrushna Ramrao Barde dashed the auto-rickshaw, causing fatal injuries to Rajesh. The claimants, being the widow, mother, and minor daughters of the deceased, sought compensation. The Tribunal held the tractor driver negligent and awarded Rs.8,00,000/-. The Insurance Company appealed, contending contributory negligence by the deceased and excessive compensation. The High Court examined the evidence, including the spot panchnama and police papers, which indicated that the auto-rickshaw was being driven without lights and the deceased failed to give way to the oncoming tractor-trolley. The Court found that the deceased was 50% contributory negligent. Regarding quantum, the Court upheld the multiplier of 17 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, but reduced the compensation proportionately due to contributory negligence. The interest rate was reduced from 8% to 6% per annum. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the award accordingly.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - Deceased auto-rickshaw driver was driving without lights and failed to give way to tractor-trolley coming from opposite direction - Held that deceased was 50% contributory negligent, reducing insurer's liability proportionately (Paras 5-7).

B) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Quantum - Multiplier - Deceased aged 30 years, income Rs.3,000 per month - Tribunal applied multiplier of 17 and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses - Held that multiplier of 17 is correct as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, but compensation reduced due to contributory negligence (Paras 8-9).

C) Motor Accident Claims - Interest Rate - Reduction - Tribunal awarded interest at 8% per annum - Held that interest rate reduced to 6% per annum considering prevailing bank rates (Para 10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the deceased auto-rickshaw driver was guilty of contributory negligence and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal partly allowed. The award is modified: compensation reduced by 50% due to contributory negligence of deceased. Interest rate reduced from 8% to 6% per annum. The Insurance Company is liable to pay 50% of the awarded amount with interest at 6% per annum.

Law Points

  • Contributory negligence
  • Apportionment of liability
  • Motor accident compensation
  • Interest rate reduction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (12) 122

First Appeal No.1672 of 2008

2013-12-12

A. P. Bhangale, J.

Shri A.R.Godbole for appellant, Shri G.K.Sarda for respondent No.2

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Akola

Smt. Kalavati Wd/o Surajpal Sahu and Others

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 on grounds of contributory negligence and excessive quantum

Filing Reason

Insurance company challenged the Tribunal's finding of negligence and quantum of compensation

Previous Decisions

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola, awarded Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 8% per annum in Claim Petition No.119 of 2005

Issues

Whether the deceased auto-rickshaw driver was guilty of contributory negligence? Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the deceased was driving without lights and failed to give way, contributing to the accident. Respondents argued that the tractor driver was solely negligent and the compensation was just.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the deceased auto-rickshaw driver was driving without lights and failed to give way to an oncoming tractor-trolley, he is guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. The multiplier of 17 as per Sarla Verma is correct, but compensation must be reduced proportionately. Interest rate may be reduced from 8% to 6% per annum considering prevailing bank rates.

Judgment Excerpts

The spot panchnama and police papers indicate that the auto-rickshaw was being driven without lights and the deceased failed to give way to the oncoming tractor-trolley. In my opinion, the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. The multiplier of 17 is correct as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. DTC. The interest rate is reduced from 8% to 6% per annum.

Procedural History

Claim Petition No.119 of 2005 was filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola, which awarded compensation on 31.7.2008. The Insurance Company appealed to the High Court on 12.12.2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Partly Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Due to Contributory Negligence of Deceased Auto-Rickshaw Driver. Deceased driver found 50% negligent, reducing compensation and interest rate under Motor Vehicles Act,...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Workmen's Restoration Application in Unfair Labour Practice Complaint Against Bajaj Auto Limited. Industrial Court's Rejection on Merits Set Aside, Matter Remanded for Fresh Consideration.