Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rakeshgiri Arvindgiri Goswami, filed a First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 06.07.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Anand, in MACP No.351 of 2014. The appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000 for injuries sustained in a motor accident on 28.02.2014, when a TATA Sumo driven rashly and negligently from the wrong side dashed into his rickshaw. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,45,840, apportioning 20% negligence on the appellant and assessing his income at Rs.4,000 per month. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in holding him 20% negligent as the driver of the offending vehicle was not examined to rebut the evidence, and that his income should have been assessed at Rs.9,000 per month as he was a driver of heavy vehicles. The Insurance Company opposed the appeal, arguing the award was just and proper. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the Tribunal's negligence apportionment was erroneous as the driver of the offending vehicle was not examined, and the income assessment was too low given the appellant's occupation. The Court set aside the Tribunal's award and recalculated compensation, enhancing it to Rs.3,22,840 with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Negligence Apportionment - Rebuttal Evidence - The Tribunal erred in holding the appellant 20% negligent when the driver of the offending vehicle was not examined to rebut the claimant's evidence - Held that in the absence of rebuttal evidence, the negligence of the offending vehicle driver is to be considered 100% (Paras 6-7). B) Motor Accident Compensation - Income Assessment - Self-Employed Person - The Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant's income at Rs.4,000 per month as the appellant was a driver of heavy vehicles and the minimum wage for a skilled worker was Rs.9,000 per month - Held that the income should be assessed at Rs.9,000 per month (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in apportioning 20% negligence on the appellant without rebuttal evidence and in assessing the appellant's income at Rs.4,000 per month instead of Rs.9,000 per month.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 06.07.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Anand, in MACP No.351 of 2014 is set aside. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,22,840 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Negligence apportionment requires rebuttal evidence
- Income assessment for self-employed persons
- Compensation enhancement under Motor Vehicles Act
