Case Note & Summary
The appellants, being the widow, children, and mother of deceased Ganesh Khanjode, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for his death in a motor accident. The deceased, a Head Constable, was on duty on 17.5.2006, traveling in a police van. While the van was parked at Nandura, he was cleaning its window screen when a Trax Cruiser vehicle owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2 hit him. He succumbed to injuries. The claimants alleged rash and negligent driving by the Trax Cruiser driver. The owner and insurer denied negligence, blaming the deceased. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldana, partly allowed the petition, awarding Rs. 3,50,000/- with 6% interest, holding both respondents jointly and severally liable but finding the deceased 50% contributorily negligent. The claimants appealed for enhancement. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the deceased was stationary and cleaning the window when hit; there was no evidence of his negligence. The court set aside the finding of contributory negligence, holding the accident solely due to the Trax Cruiser driver's rashness. On compensation, the court considered the deceased's salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month, added 50% for future prospects (as per Sarla Verma), deducted 1/4th for personal expenses (since there were 5 dependents), applied multiplier of 15 (age 37), and awarded Rs. 7,50,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Enhancement of Compensation - Appeal against Tribunal's award of Rs. 3,50,000/- for death of Head Constable - Claimants sought Rs. 15,00,000/- - Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 7,50,000/- with 6% interest from date of petition - Held that Tribunal erred in deducting 50% for contributory negligence without evidence and in applying multiplier of 13 instead of 15 (Paras 1-10). B) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Deceased was cleaning window screen of parked police van when hit by Trax Cruiser - No evidence of negligence by deceased - Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence set aside - Held that accident occurred solely due to rash driving of Trax Cruiser driver (Paras 3-6). C) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Deceased aged 37 years - Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 - As per Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier for age 36-40 is 15 - Court applied correct multiplier of 15 - Held that multiplier must be as per settled law (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in assessing compensation and in holding the deceased contributorily negligent?
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. The finding of contributory negligence against the deceased is set aside. Compensation enhanced from Rs. 3,50,000/- to Rs. 7,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced amount.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- Compensation for death
- Contributory negligence
- Rash and negligent driving
- Dependency
- Multiplier
- Future prospects
