Case Note & Summary
The case involves two first appeals filed by the National Insurance Company Limited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging a common judgment and award dated 13.09.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Rajula. The Tribunal had partly allowed claim petitions arising from a motor accident on 10.05.2010, where deceased Kanabhai Kalyanbhai Baraiya and Laxmiben Kanabhai Baraiya died when their Tata Ace Mini Truck was hit by a truck (No. GJ-18-X-9807) driven rashly and negligently. The Tribunal held the truck driver solely negligent and awarded Rs. 49,44,000/- in MACP No. 809/2011 (for Kanabhai) and Rs. 24,87,000/- in MACP No. 810/2011 (for Laxmiben). The insurance company appealed, arguing the compensation was exorbitant and based on unsubstantiated income. The High Court noted that the claimants did not produce any documentary evidence of income, such as income tax returns or bank statements. The Tribunal had assumed income of Rs. 15,000 per month for Kanabhai and Rs. 10,000 per month for Laxmiben without basis. The High Court, considering the nature of work (fish marketing) and lack of evidence, reduced the notional income to Rs. 6,000 per month for Kanabhai and Rs. 5,000 per month for Laxmiben. Applying a multiplier of 13 (as per the age of the deceased, 50 and 45 years respectively) and deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, the High Court recalculated the compensation. For Kanabhai, the loss of dependency was computed as Rs. 6,000 x 12 x 13 x 2/3 = Rs. 6,24,000, plus Rs. 70,000 under conventional heads, totaling Rs. 6,94,000. For Laxmiben, the loss of dependency was Rs. 5,000 x 12 x 13 x 2/3 = Rs. 5,20,000, plus Rs. 70,000, totaling Rs. 5,90,000. The High Court allowed the appeals, reducing the compensation amounts accordingly, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation Assessment - Income Proof - The claimants failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased, who were engaged in fish marketing. The Tribunal's assessment of income at Rs. 15,000 per month for Kanabhai and Rs. 10,000 per month for Laxmiben was held to be without basis. The High Court reduced the income to Rs. 6,000 per month for Kanabhai and Rs. 5,000 per month for Laxmiben, applying the multiplier of 13 as per the age of the deceased. (Paras 5-7) B) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Age of Deceased - The deceased Kanabhai was aged 50 years and Laxmiben was aged 45 years. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 13, which was upheld by the High Court as per the Sarla Verma case. (Para 6) C) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Contributory Negligence - The Tribunal held the driver of the offending truck solely negligent. The High Court upheld this finding as there was no evidence of contributory negligence by the driver of the Mini Truck. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was exorbitant and based on insufficient evidence of income and correct multiplier?
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Compensation reduced: For MACP No. 809/2011, from Rs. 49,44,000 to Rs. 6,94,000; for MACP No. 810/2011, from Rs. 24,87,000 to Rs. 5,90,000. Interest at 7.5% per annum from date of petition till realization.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 173
- Compensation Assessment
- Multiplier
- Income Proof
- Negligence
