Case Note & Summary
The appellant, United India Insurance Company Limited, filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 04.02.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dhoraji at Rajkot, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.81/2017. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.16,02,000/- with interest at 9% per annum to the claimants, legal heirs of the deceased Babubhai Undhad. The accident occurred on 16.08.2017 when the deceased was traveling in a motorcar driven by his son Sagar Babubhai Unghad. Another car ahead suddenly applied brakes, causing the deceased's car to dash into it, resulting in fatal injuries. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering evidence, held the driver of the offending vehicle (car No.GJ-03-EC-4371) solely negligent and assessed the deceased's income at Rs.15,000 per month based on his ownership of a lath machine and a car. The Insurance Company appealed, arguing that the income was assessed without evidence and that contributory negligence should have been attributed to the deceased. The claimants opposed, contending that the Tribunal's findings were correct and that it was a case of composite negligence. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no error in the Tribunal's assessment of income, noting that the deceased owned a lath machine and a car, and no rebuttal evidence was produced. On the issue of negligence, the Court held that the deceased was an occupant in the car driven by his son, and there was no evidence of negligence on his part; thus, it was a case of composite negligence, not contributory negligence. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's award was upheld.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Income Assessment - Deceased's income as owner of lath machine - Tribunal assessed income at Rs.15,000 per month based on ownership of car and lath machine - Held that in absence of rebuttal evidence, Tribunal's assessment is reasonable and not perverse (Paras 3-6).
B) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Composite Negligence - Deceased was occupant in car driven by his son - Accident caused by sudden brake of another vehicle - No evidence of negligence by deceased - Held that it is a case of composite negligence, not contributory negligence, and no deduction for contributory negligence is warranted (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000 per month without evidence, and whether contributory negligence should have been attributed to the deceased.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 04.02.2022 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.81/2017.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 173
- contributory negligence
- composite negligence
- income assessment
- burden of proof
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (02) 29
R/First Appeal No. 2301 of 2022
Mr. Rathin P. Raval for Appellant, Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi for Respondents No.1,3
The United India Insurance Company Limited
Vilasben Babubhai Undhad & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition for compensation arising from a fatal motor accident.
Remedy Sought
The appellant Insurance Company sought reduction of compensation and setting aside of the Tribunal's finding on negligence and income assessment.
Filing Reason
The appellant was aggrieved by the Tribunal's award of Rs.16,02,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., contending that the income of the deceased was assessed without evidence and that contributory negligence was not considered.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dhoraji at Rajkot, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.81/2017, awarded compensation of Rs.16,02,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., holding the driver of the offending vehicle solely negligent and assessing the deceased's income at Rs.15,000 per month.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000 per month in the absence of evidence?
Whether the Tribunal erred in not attributing contributory negligence to the deceased?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The Tribunal committed an error in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000 p.m. without evidence and in not considering contributory negligence; at least 50% contributory negligence ought to have been held.
Respondents: The Tribunal correctly held sole negligence on the driver of the other car; no evidence of negligence by the deceased; it is a case of composite negligence; income assessment was reasonable based on ownership of lath machine and car.
Ratio Decidendi
In motor accident claims, the assessment of income by the Tribunal, based on the deceased's ownership of assets like a lath machine and car, is reasonable if not rebutted. Where the deceased is an occupant in a vehicle and the accident is caused by another vehicle's negligence, it is a case of composite negligence, and contributory negligence cannot be attributed without evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 04.02.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dhoraji at Rajkot, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.81/2017, the appellant –Insurance Company preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
It is the case of the claimants that on 16.08.2017, deceased was going in motorcar bearing No.GJ-03-JL-4952, which was driven by his son Sagar Babubhai Unghad (claimant No.3) and when they reached near Aerodram on Porbandar – Rajkot National Highway, at that time, one another motorcar bearing No.GJ-03-EC-4371 was going ahead of the car of the deceased. At that time, driver of that car had suddenly applied brakes, due to which, the car of the deceased dashed with it. As a result, the deceased got serious injuries and succumbed to it.
Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- p.m in absence of any evidence of income and further, in not considering contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
Per contra, learned counsel for the original claimants has opposed the present appeal and submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in holding sole negligent on the part of the driver of car bearing No.GJ-03-EC-4371 because the accident occurred only because of negligence on his part.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month and in not attributing contributory negligence to the deceased.
Procedural History
The claimants filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.81/2017 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dhoraji at Rajkot, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal passed judgment and award on 04.02.2022, awarding Rs.16,02,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. The appellant Insurance Company filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, which was heard and dismissed on 05.02.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 173
