Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vinubhai Dayabhai Pansuriya, was a pillion rider on a motorcycle when a Maruti car driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner from the wrong side caused an accident on 09.06.2008. The appellant sustained severe injuries including fractures. He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) at Rajkot partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs.1,44,313 with 9% interest, after deducting 10% for contributory negligence of the motorcycle rider. The appellant challenged the award on grounds of negligence apportionment and quantum. The High Court held that the deduction of 10% was unjustified as the appellant was a pillion rider with no control over the vehicle. On quantum, the Tribunal had assessed income at Rs.3,000 per month, but the Court reassessed it at Rs.5,000 per month based on notional income for self-employed persons, added 40% for future prospects, applied multiplier of 16 (age 35), and enhanced compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and special diet/attendant charges. The total compensation was recalculated at Rs.3,21,000, and the appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence Apportionment - Pillion Rider - The Tribunal erred in deducting 10% on account of negligence of the rider of the motor cycle when the claimant was a pillion rider, as there was no evidence of contributory negligence by the pillion rider - Held that the deduction was unjustified and set aside (Paras 8-9). B) Motor Accident Claims - Income Assessment - Self-Employed - The Tribunal assessed income at Rs.3,000/- per month without considering the claimant's evidence of earning Rs.3,00,000 to Rs.4,00,000 per annum from factory and agriculture - Held that income should be assessed at Rs.5,000/- per month based on notional income for self-employed persons (Paras 10-11). C) Motor Accident Claims - Future Prospects - Self-Employed - As per settled law, 40% addition for future prospects is applicable to self-employed persons below 40 years of age - Held that 40% addition should be applied (Para 12). D) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Age of Claimant - The claimant was 35 years old at the time of accident, hence multiplier of 16 is applicable as per Sarla Verma v. DTC - Held that multiplier of 16 should be applied (Para 13). E) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Pain, Shock and Suffering - The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- for pain, shock and suffering, which is on the lower side - Held that it should be enhanced to Rs.30,000/- (Para 14). F) Motor Accident Claims - Medical Expenses - The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,500/- for medical expenses based on bills - Held that the same is confirmed (Para 15). G) Motor Accident Claims - Special Diet, Attendant Charges, Transportation - The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- for special diet, attendant charges and transportation - Held that it should be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- (Para 16). H) Motor Accident Claims - Loss of Amenities - The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- for loss of amenities - Held that it should be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- (Para 17). I) Motor Accident Claims - Interest Rate - The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum - Held that the rate of interest is just and proper and confirmed (Para 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in apportioning 10% contributory negligence on the pillion rider and in assessing the income and compensation quantum.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,21,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The respondent no.2 insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Negligence apportionment
- contributory negligence
- income assessment
- future prospects
- multiplier
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- Section 168
