Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim petition filed by the widow and children of Dhulabhai Mohanbhai Vankar, who died in a vehicular accident on 03.05.2008. The claimants sought compensation from the truck owner, driver, and insurer. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahal at Godhra, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.6,77,960/- with 9% interest, holding the deceased 15% contributorily negligent. The insurance company appealed against the award, while the claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the Tribunal's finding of 15% contributory negligence was based on the fact that the truck hit the motorcycle from behind, indicating some negligence on the part of the deceased. The court upheld this finding. On compensation, the court noted that the deceased was 46 years old, and as per Sarla Verma guidelines, the appropriate multiplier was 13, not 14 as applied by the Tribunal. The court also held that 25% should be added towards future prospects as per Pranay Sethi, which the Tribunal had not granted. The deduction for personal expenses was correctly taken as 1/5th since there were 7 dependents. The court recalculated the compensation: monthly income Rs.3,000, plus 25% future prospects = Rs.3,750; annual income Rs.45,000; less 1/5th deduction = Rs.36,000; multiplied by 13 = Rs.4,68,000; plus conventional heads Rs.70,000 (loss of consortium Rs.40,000, loss of estate Rs.15,000, funeral expenses Rs.15,000) = Rs.5,38,000. After deducting 15% contributory negligence, the net compensation was Rs.4,57,300. The court also reduced the interest rate from 9% to 7.5% per annum. The appeal was partly allowed, and the cross-objections were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Negligence - The Tribunal held the deceased 15% negligent for the accident based on evidence that the truck dashed the motorcycle from behind, indicating some negligence on part of the deceased. The High Court upheld this finding as no perversity was shown. (Paras 1-5) B) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Multiplier - The deceased was aged 46 years, hence multiplier of 13 should be applied as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The Tribunal erroneously applied multiplier of 14. High Court corrected it to 13. (Paras 6-8) C) Motor Accident Claims - Future Prospects - Addition of 25% towards future prospects is permissible for self-employed persons aged 46 years as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The Tribunal had not granted future prospects; High Court allowed 25% addition. (Paras 9-10) D) Motor Accident Claims - Deduction for Personal Expenses - Since the deceased had 7 dependents, deduction of 1/5th towards personal expenses is appropriate as per Sarla Verma. (Para 11) E) Motor Accident Claims - Interest Rate - The Tribunal awarded 9% interest per annum; High Court reduced it to 7.5% per annum in view of prevailing bank rates. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the deceased contributorily negligent to the extent of 15% and in awarding compensation using multiplier of 13 instead of 14 as per Sarla Verma guidelines.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The compensation is reduced from Rs.6,77,960/- to Rs.4,57,300/-. The rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum. The cross-objections are dismissed. The insurance company is directed to deposit the modified amount with interest within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence
- Motor Accident Claims
- Multiplier determination
- Sarla Verma guidelines
- Future prospects
- Deduction for personal expenses
- Interest rate
