Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim petition filed by the legal heirs of Gangadhar Suvarnakar (deceased) who died in a vehicular accident on 18-08-2009. The deceased was a pedestrian when he was hit by a car bearing registration No. MH-24/3949 driven by respondent no.6 Tanaji Kanche, owned by appellant Govind Modi, and insured by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The claimants, being the widow and three children, sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, awarded Rs.4,68,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, holding the driver 50% negligent and the deceased 50% negligent for contributory negligence. The owner of the vehicle appealed against the award, challenging the quantum and the finding of negligence. The High Court examined the evidence, including the FIR and spot panchnama, and found no material to suggest contributory negligence by the deceased. However, since the claimants did not cross-appeal, the apportionment of negligence was not disturbed. On quantum, the Court found that the Tribunal had assessed the deceased's income at Rs.4,500/- per month without any evidence, and reduced it to Rs.3,000/- per month. The addition for future prospects was reduced from 50% to 25% as per the age of the deceased (45 years). The multiplier was corrected from 13 to 14 as per Sarla Verma. The deduction for personal expenses was upheld at 1/3rd. The Court recalculated the compensation and reduced the total award from Rs.4,68,000/- to Rs.3,15,000/-. The appeal was partly allowed, and the insurance company was directed to pay the reduced amount with interest.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Apportionment of Negligence - The Tribunal held the driver of the offending vehicle (respondent no.6) 50% negligent and the deceased 50% negligent for contributory negligence - The High Court found no evidence of contributory negligence by the deceased and held the driver solely negligent - However, the Court upheld the apportionment as no cross-appeal was filed by the claimants (Paras 10-12). B) Motor Accident Claims - Income Proof - Assessment of Income - The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month based on guesswork without any documentary evidence - The High Court reduced it to Rs.3,000/- per month as there was no proof of income - Held that in the absence of evidence, the income should be assessed conservatively (Paras 13-15). C) Motor Accident Claims - Future Prospects - Addition for Future Prospects - The Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects - The High Court held that since the deceased was a daily wager aged 45 years, only 25% addition is permissible as per settled law - Held that future prospects should be added at 25% (Para 16). D) Motor Accident Claims - Deduction for Personal Expenses - The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses - The High Court upheld the deduction as the deceased had four dependents - Held that 1/4th deduction is appropriate for four dependents, but the Court did not interfere as no appeal by claimants (Para 17). E) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - The Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 - The High Court held that for a person aged 45 years, the multiplier should be 14 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC - Held that multiplier of 14 is applicable (Para 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased and in apportioning negligence between the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased?
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified. The total compensation is reduced from Rs.4,68,000/- to Rs.3,15,000/-. The insurance company is directed to pay the reduced amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The apportionment of negligence is upheld as no cross-appeal was filed.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Negligence
- Contributory Negligence
- Income Proof
- Future Prospects
- Deduction for Personal Expenses
- Multiplier
