Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises out of a judgment and award dated 01.12.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in MACP No.1145 of 2005. The appellants, being the widow, minor son, and parents of the deceased Maheshbhai Shantibhai Parmar, filed the claim petition seeking compensation for his death in a vehicular accident. On 15.09.2005, the deceased was driving an Activa scooter on Sarkhej-Narol Highway when an Eicher truck driven by respondent No.1 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the rear of the scooter, causing fatal injuries. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.5,41,980 with 8% interest, but held the deceased 10% contributory negligent. The appellants challenged the quantum and the finding of contributory negligence. The High Court framed issues regarding contributory negligence, multiplier, future prospects, and other heads of compensation. The appellants argued that the truck driver was solely negligent as the accident was a rear-end collision, and that the compensation was inadequate. The respondents supported the Tribunal's award. The Court analyzed the evidence and held that there was no material to show negligence on part of the deceased; the truck driver was solely negligent. On compensation, the Court applied multiplier 17 (instead of 15), added 40% future prospects (as deceased was 30 years old and self-employed), and enhanced amounts for loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 to widow), funeral expenses (Rs.15,000), and loss of estate (Rs.15,000). The total compensation was recalculated at Rs.7,72,000, with 8% interest from the date of petition. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Burden of Proof - In a collision between a truck and a scooter from behind, the truck driver is presumed negligent unless proven otherwise - The Tribunal erred in attributing 10% negligence to the deceased scooter driver without any evidence of his negligence - Held that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver (Paras 5-7). B) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Multiplier - For a deceased aged 30 years, the appropriate multiplier is 17 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC - The Tribunal erroneously applied multiplier of 15 - Held that multiplier of 17 should be applied (Paras 8-9). C) Motor Accident Claims - Future Prospects - Self-Employed Person - As per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 40% addition for future prospects is permissible for self-employed person aged below 40 - The deceased was 30 years old and self-employed - Held that 40% of the income should be added towards future prospects (Paras 10-11). D) Motor Accident Claims - Loss of Consortium - Spousal Consortium - As per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, each spouse is entitled to Rs.40,000 for loss of consortium - The Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000 - Held that the widow is entitled to Rs.40,000 (Para 12). E) Motor Accident Claims - Funeral Expenses - As per Pranay Sethi, funeral expenses are fixed at Rs.15,000 - The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000 - Held that Rs.15,000 should be awarded (Para 13). F) Motor Accident Claims - Loss of Estate - As per Pranay Sethi, loss of estate is fixed at Rs.15,000 - The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000 - Held that Rs.15,000 should be awarded (Para 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Tribunal erred in holding the deceased 10% contributory negligent and in awarding inadequate compensation under various heads.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The finding of 10% contributory negligence is set aside. The total compensation is enhanced from Rs.5,41,980 to Rs.7,72,000. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced amount with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The award is to be deposited within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence
- Motor accident compensation
- Multiplier method
- Future prospects
- Loss of consortium
- Funeral expenses
- Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
