Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra, in M.A.C.P. No. 2094 of 1998, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.3,52,000/- with 8% interest. The appellants, being the heirs of the deceased Bharatsinh Rayajibhai Patelia, sought enhancement of compensation. The facts reveal that on 03.12.1998, the deceased was travelling in a tempo bearing registration No.GJ-17-T-7846 along with his sewing machine, after paying hire charges to the driver. The tempo was driven rashly and negligently, and when it reached near Mahelan Village at about 7:00 p.m., the driver suddenly applied brake, causing the deceased to be thrown off and sustain fatal injuries. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal held the driver negligent but treated the deceased as a gratuitous passenger, thereby exonerating the insurance company. The owner of the tempo was held liable. The High Court framed two issues: whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, and whether the compensation was just. On the first issue, the Court noted that the deceased had paid hire charges for himself and his sewing machine, making him a passenger for hire, and thus the insurance company was liable. On the second issue, the Court applied the multiplier of 14 as per Sarla Verma, added 25% future prospects as per Pranay Sethi, and computed the loss of dependency at Rs.4,72,500/-, plus Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses, and Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium, totaling Rs.5,17,500/-. The appeal was partly allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.5,17,500/- with 8% interest from the date of petition.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Burden of Proof - The accident occurred when the tempo driver suddenly applied brake, causing the deceased to be thrown off and sustain fatal injuries - The Tribunal held the driver negligent based on the principle of res ipsa loquitur and the unchallenged evidence of the claimant - The High Court affirmed the finding of negligence, noting that the driver did not enter the witness box to rebut the presumption (Paras 3-5). B) Motor Accident Claims - Passenger for Hire vs. Gratuitous Passenger - The deceased was travelling in the tempo with his sewing machine after paying hire charges - The Tribunal erred in holding him to be a gratuitous passenger - The High Court held that the deceased was a passenger for hire, as he had paid fare for himself and his goods, and thus the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner (Paras 6-8). C) Motor Accident Claims - Computation of Compensation - Multiplier Method - Future Prospects - The deceased was aged 45 years and earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a tailor - The Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 and did not add future prospects - The High Court, following the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, added 25% towards future prospects and applied multiplier of 14 as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation - The compensation was enhanced from Rs.3,52,000/- to Rs.5,17,500/- (Paras 9-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger or a passenger for hire in the tempo, and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,17,500/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Negligence
- Burden of proof
- Res ipsa loquitur
- Multiplier method
- Future prospects
- Loss of dependency
- Contributory negligence
- Gratuitous passenger
- Passenger for hire
