Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ghanshyamsinh Manubha Jadeja, filed a first appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad against the judgment and award dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkanta at Himmatnagar in MACP No.464/2014. The claim petition arose out of a motor accident that occurred on 02.07.2014, when the claimant was standing beside the road along with his motorcycle at Rampura crossroads opposite a school, on the correct side of the road. At that time, respondent no.1 drove a Bolero Jeep bearing registration no.GJ-18-BA-8785 in a rash and negligent manner, violating traffic rules, and hit the claimant. The claimant sustained grievous injuries including fractures, resulting in permanent partial disability. He was initially admitted to Ved Hospital, Himmatnagar, and later shifted to Dr. Parekh's hospital in Ahmedabad as an indoor patient. At the time of the accident, the claimant was working as a driver earning Rs.7,500/- per month. He filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The insurance company (respondent no.2) filed a written statement at Exh.19 denying the averments. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.2,33,406/- after deducting 10% on account of contributory negligence of the claimant, with interest at 7.5% per annum. The claimant appealed challenging both the quantum and the finding of contributory negligence. The High Court heard learned counsels for both sides. The court found that there was no evidence on record to show that the claimant was negligent; the accident occurred when he was standing on the correct side of the road and the offending vehicle came from behind. Therefore, the deduction of 10% for contributory negligence was set aside. On quantum, the court noted that the Tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs.3,000/- without adding future prospects. Following the principles in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, the court determined the claimant's monthly income at Rs.3,000/-, added 40% future prospects (Rs.1,200/-), making it Rs.4,200/-. Applying a multiplier of 17 (claimant aged about 30 years) and disability of 10%, the loss of future income was calculated as Rs.4,200 x 12 x 17 x 10% = Rs.85,680/-. The court enhanced compensation for pain, shock and suffering from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-, confirmed medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-, and enhanced special diet, transportation and attendant charges from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The total compensation was recalculated as Rs.2,20,680/- (loss of future income) + Rs.25,000/- (pain, shock and suffering) + Rs.1,00,000/- (medical expenses) + Rs.10,000/- (special diet etc.) = Rs.2,20,680/-. However, since the Tribunal had awarded Rs.2,33,406/- after deducting 10% contributory negligence, the actual award before deduction was Rs.2,59,340/-. The court found that the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,20,680/- was less than the original award before deduction, but since the claimant had not challenged the quantum on other heads, the court modified the award to Rs.2,59,340/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Burden of Proof - The Tribunal deducted 10% from compensation on account of contributory negligence of the claimant, but there was no evidence on record to show that the claimant was negligent. The accident occurred when the claimant was standing beside the road on the correct side, and the offending vehicle came from behind and hit him. Held that in the absence of any evidence, the finding of contributory negligence cannot be sustained and the deduction of 10% is set aside (Paras 7-9). B) Motor Accident Claims - Computation of Compensation - Permanent Disability - Multiplier Method - The claimant sustained permanent partial disability of 10% as per disability certificate. The Tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs.3,000/- without adding future prospects. Held that as per Pranay Sethi, 40% future prospects should be added for self-employed persons aged about 30 years, and the multiplier of 17 should be applied as per Sarla Verma. The compensation under the head of loss of future income is recalculated accordingly (Paras 10-12). C) Motor Accident Claims - Pain, Shock and Suffering - The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- for pain, shock and suffering. Considering the nature of injuries and hospitalization, the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- (Para 13). D) Motor Accident Claims - Medical Expenses - The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses based on bills produced. The same is confirmed (Para 14). E) Motor Accident Claims - Special Diet, Transportation and Attendant Charges - The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/-. Considering the period of treatment, the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- (Para 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal was justified in deducting 10% on account of contributory negligence of the claimant in the absence of any evidence, and whether the compensation awarded was just and proper.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 30.09.2021 is modified. The deduction of 10% on account of contributory negligence is set aside. The total compensation is enhanced to Rs.2,59,340/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Forty Only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence must be proved by evidence
- not assumed
- in motor accident claims
- the burden of proving contributory negligence lies on the party alleging it
- absence of evidence of negligence on part of claimant warrants deletion of deduction for contributory negligence
- compensation for permanent disability must be calculated using multiplier method as per Sarla Verma
- future prospects must be added for self-employed persons as per Pranay Sethi.
