Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case — Insurer of Tipper Truck Held Liable for Contributory Negligence. The court set aside the Tribunal's finding that the driver of the jeep was solely negligent and held the driver of the tipper truck 50% contributory negligent, directing the insurer of the tipper truck to pay 50% of the compensation amount.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 15
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from a motor accident claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellants, legal representatives of the deceased N. Ramchandra Naik, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, seeking compensation for the death of Naik in a road accident involving a jeep and a tipper truck. The Tribunal, by award dated 22.09.2014 in M.A.C.P. No. 122 of 2008, held the owner of the jeep liable to pay Rs.27,21,800/- with interest at 9% per annum, exonerating the tipper truck driver and its insurer. The claimants appealed, contending that the tipper truck driver was also negligent. The High Court examined the evidence, including the spot panchnama and police report, which showed that the tipper truck was parked on the road without lights and without any indicator, and the jeep collided with it from behind. The court held that the tipper truck driver was negligent for parking without lights, contributing to the accident. The court apportioned liability equally between the jeep driver and the tipper truck driver, directing the insurer of the tipper truck (Iffco Toko General Insurance Co. Ltd.) to pay 50% of the compensation amount. The appeal was allowed, and the award was modified accordingly.

Headnote

A) Motor Vehicles Act - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court considered whether the Tribunal erred in holding the jeep driver solely negligent and exonerating the tipper truck driver. The court found that the tipper truck driver was also negligent as he was driving without lights and parked on the road without any indicator, contributing to the accident. Held that both drivers were equally negligent, and the insurer of the tipper truck is liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount (Paras 3-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the jeep solely negligent and exonerating the driver of the tipper truck, and whether the insurer of the tipper truck is liable to pay compensation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified. The driver of the jeep and the driver of the tipper truck are held equally negligent. Respondent No.3 (Iffco Toko General Insurance Co. Ltd.) is directed to pay 50% of the compensation amount of Rs.27,21,800/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. The award against the owner of the jeep is reduced to 50%.

Law Points

  • Contributory negligence
  • Apportionment of liability
  • Motor accident claims
  • Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act
  • 1988
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 141

First Appeal No. 190 of 2015

2016-03-07

R. K. Deshpande

Shri Abhay Sambre for appellants, Shri A.J.Pophaly for Respondent No.3, Shri J.A.Anthony for Respondent No.6

Smt. N.Sujata wd/o N.Ramchandra Naik and others

Sarat Srikanta Mahanta and others

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Remedy Sought

The appellants sought to hold the insurer of the tipper truck liable for compensation.

Filing Reason

The Tribunal exonerated the tipper truck driver and its insurer, holding the jeep driver solely negligent.

Previous Decisions

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, in M.A.C.P. No. 122 of 2008 decided on 22.09.2014, awarded Rs.27,21,800/- against the owner of the jeep, exonerating the tipper truck driver and its insurer.

Issues

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the jeep driver solely negligent? Whether the tipper truck driver was contributory negligent? Whether the insurer of the tipper truck is liable to pay compensation?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the tipper truck was parked on the road without lights and without any indicator, contributing to the accident. Respondent No.3 (insurer of tipper truck) argued that the jeep driver was solely negligent.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a vehicle is parked on the road without lights and without any indicator, the driver of that vehicle is guilty of contributory negligence. In a collision between a moving vehicle and a parked vehicle, both drivers may be equally negligent if the parked vehicle was not properly illuminated or indicated.

Judgment Excerpts

The spot panchnama indicates that the tipper truck was parked on the road without lights and without any indicator. The driver of the tipper truck was also negligent in parking the vehicle on the road without lights and without any indicator. Both the drivers are equally negligent.

Procedural History

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, decided M.A.C.P. No. 122 of 2008 on 22.09.2014, awarding compensation against the owner of the jeep. The claimants filed First Appeal No. 190 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Notice for final disposal was issued on 30.03.2015. The appeal was heard and decided on 07.03.2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case — Insurer of Tipper Truck Held Liable for Contributory Negligence. The court set aside the Tribunal's finding that the driver of the jeep was solely negligent and held the driver of the t...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Probate Case, Holding Court Fee Payable on Probate Value Not Property Value. Interpretation of Section 29 read with Schedule I, Clause 10 of Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 determines court fee on probate application ba...