Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chaudhary Prakeshbhai Nathabhai, was the original claimant in a motor accident claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux-II), Mahesana. On 26.07.2004 at about 5:30 a.m., the appellant was driving a truck bearing registration No. GJ-3U-5102 from Visnagar to Baroda. Near the accident site, a truck bearing registration No. MH-12-AR-7745 came from the opposite side at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashing into the appellant's truck. The appellant sustained grievous injuries and was treated as an indoor and outdoor patient for a considerable period. He was aged 27 years and earning Rs.2,500 per month as a driver. He filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000. The learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.59,040 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing till realization, but deducted 70% of the awarded amount on account of the self-negligence of the claimant. The appellant challenged this deduction in the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that there was no material on record to show that the appellant was driving rashly or negligently. The accident was caused solely by the opposite truck coming at excessive speed. The burden to prove contributory negligence lay on the insurance company, which failed to adduce any evidence. Therefore, the deduction of 70% was set aside, and the insurance company was directed to pay the deducted amount with interest. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Burden of Proof - Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal deducted 70% of compensation attributing self-negligence to the claimant driver, but there was no evidence on record to show that the claimant was driving rashly or negligently. The accident occurred when the opposite truck came at excessive speed and dashed into the claimant's truck. Held that in the absence of any material, the finding of contributory negligence cannot be sustained and the deduction was set aside (Paras 1-10). B) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Assessment of Evidence - Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The claimant was a 27-year-old driver earning Rs.2,500 per month, sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal awarded Rs.59,040 with 7.5% interest but deducted 70% for self-negligence. The High Court found no evidence of negligence on the claimant's part and restored the full award amount, directing the insurance company to pay the deducted amount with interest (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in deducting 70% of the awarded compensation on account of self-negligence of the claimant/appellant, in the absence of any evidence to show that the claimant contributed to the accident.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 18.11.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux-II), Mahesana, in M.A.C.P. No. 211 of 2005, is modified to the extent that the deduction of 70% of the awarded amount on account of self-negligence of the claimant is set aside. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the deducted amount along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence
- burden of proof
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- Section 168
- assessment of evidence
- apportionment of negligence
