Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Keshavbhai Kurjibhai Vora, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) at Gondal partly allowed the petition, awarding Rs. 10,01,618 with 9% interest, but attributed 10% contributory negligence to the claimant and assessed his income at Rs. 4,500 per month, ignoring agricultural income. The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Act, seeking enhancement. The High Court of Gujarat, per Justice Nisha M. Thakore, heard the appeal. The court found that the Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence was perverse as there was no evidence and the driver of the offending vehicle did not appear, warranting an adverse inference. The court also held that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the claimant's agricultural income evidenced by Village Form No.8A and 7/12 abstracts. Applying the principles from Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, the court assessed the claimant's income at Rs. 4,500 salary plus Rs. 3,000 agricultural income, totaling Rs. 7,500 per month. With 40% future prospects and multiplier of 15, the loss of income was calculated at Rs. 18,90,000. The court enhanced compensation for pain, shock and suffering to Rs. 50,000, loss of amenities to Rs. 25,000, attendant charges to Rs. 15,000, special diet and transportation to Rs. 10,000, and medical expenses remained at Rs. 1,01,618. The total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 20,91,618, with 9% interest from the date of petition. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned award was modified accordingly.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Contributory Negligence - Adverse Inference - In the absence of evidence of contributory negligence and where the driver of the offending vehicle did not enter the witness box, the Tribunal ought to have drawn adverse inference against the driver and not attributed negligence to the claimant - Held that the finding of 10% contributory negligence was perverse and set aside (Paras 3.1, 4-6). B) Motor Accident Compensation - Assessment of Income - Agricultural Income - Village Form No.8A and 7/12 abstracts are sufficient proof of agricultural income even without formal proof of cultivation - Held that the Tribunal erred in ignoring such evidence and the claimant's income from agriculture should be considered (Paras 3.2, 7-9). C) Motor Accident Compensation - Future Prospects - Self-Employed Person - As per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 40% addition for future prospects is applicable to self-employed persons below 40 years - Held that the claimant, aged 38 years, is entitled to 40% future prospects (Paras 10-12). D) Motor Accident Compensation - Multiplier - Age of Claimant - As per Sarla Verma v. DTC, multiplier of 15 is applicable for age group 36-40 years - Held that the Tribunal correctly applied multiplier of 15 (Para 13). E) Motor Accident Compensation - Pain, Shock and Suffering - Inadequate Award - The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 15,000 for pain, shock and suffering, which is too low considering the nature of injuries - Held that the amount is enhanced to Rs. 50,000 (Para 14). F) Motor Accident Compensation - Medical Expenses - Reimbursement - The claimant produced medical bills of Rs. 1,01,618 - Held that the Tribunal correctly awarded the same (Para 15). G) Motor Accident Compensation - Loss of Amenities - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities, which is inadequate - Held that the amount is enhanced to Rs. 25,000 (Para 16). H) Motor Accident Compensation - Attendant Charges - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000 for attendant charges, which is low - Held that the amount is enhanced to Rs. 15,000 (Para 17). I) Motor Accident Compensation - Special Diet and Transportation - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000 for special diet and transportation, which is inadequate - Held that the amount is enhanced to Rs. 10,000 (Para 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 10% contributory negligence to the claimant without evidence, and whether the compensation awarded was inadequate considering the claimant's income from salary and agriculture.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 20.10.2014 is modified. The total compensation is enhanced from Rs. 10,01,618 to Rs. 20,91,618. The respondent no.3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 9% interest from the date of petition within eight weeks. The finding of 10% contributory negligence is set aside.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence must be proved by evidence
- adverse inference can be drawn when driver fails to appear
- income from agricultural sources can be considered even without formal proof
- multiplier and future prospects as per Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi
