Case Note & Summary
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises from a judgment and award dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Botad in MACP No.7 of 2019. The appellants, legal heirs of deceased Rajkubhai Kanubhai Boricha, challenged the Tribunal's finding of 20% contributory negligence against the deceased and the quantum of compensation. The accident occurred on 29.11.2018 when the deceased was driving his Wagon-R car on Rajkot-Bhavnagar Highway near Bhadar river bridge. An Eicher truck driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side collided head-on with the deceased's car, causing fatal injuries. The Tribunal held the truck driver 80% negligent and the deceased 20% contributory negligent, awarding Rs.45,50,000 as total compensation but deducting 20% to give Rs.36,40,000. The claimants appealed against the contributory negligence finding and the quantum. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the Tribunal had no basis for attributing negligence to the deceased as the truck was on the wrong side. The Court held that contributory negligence cannot be assumed without evidence and set aside the 20% deduction. On quantum, the Court applied the correct multiplier of 16 (age 45) instead of 14, added 25% future prospects as per Pranay Sethi, deducted 1/4th for personal expenses (7 dependents) instead of 1/3rd, and enhanced conventional heads. The total compensation was recalculated at Rs.67,72,500, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Burden of Proof - In absence of any evidence on record to show negligence on part of deceased driver, Tribunal cannot assume contributory negligence - Held that the finding of 20% contributory negligence is perverse and set aside (Paras 5-7). B) Motor Accident Claims - Quantum of Compensation - Multiplier - As per Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 16 applied based on age of deceased (45 years) - Held that Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 14 (Paras 8-10). C) Motor Accident Claims - Future Prospects - Self-Employed - As per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 25% addition for future prospects for self-employed person aged 45 years - Held that Tribunal erred in not granting future prospects (Paras 11-12). D) Motor Accident Claims - Deduction for Personal Expenses - Number of Dependents - As per Sarla Verma, deduction of 1/4th for 4 to 6 dependents - Held that Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd when there were 7 dependents (Paras 13-14). E) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation under Conventional Heads - As per Pranay Sethi, Rs.15,000 for loss of estate, Rs.40,000 for loss of consortium, Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses - Held that Tribunal awarded inadequate amounts (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Tribunal erred in holding the deceased driver 20% contributory negligent without any evidence, and whether the compensation awarded is just and proper.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The finding of 20% contributory negligence is set aside. The appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.67,72,500 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The amount already paid shall be deducted. The enhanced amount shall be deposited within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence must be proved by evidence
- not assumed
- in absence of evidence
- no deduction for contributory negligence
- multiplier based on age of deceased
- future prospects addition for self-employed
- deduction for personal expenses based on number of dependents.
