Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad in MACP No.174 of 2016. The appellant, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC), was the owner of the bus involved in the accident. The respondents, Manjulaben Kanubhai Patel and others, are the parents of the deceased, Swapnil Kanubhai Patel, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 16.11.2015. The deceased, a 22-year-old bachelor, was pursuing an Architecture Engineering course and was returning from Sikkim to Gujarat on his motorcycle (Reg. No. GJ-07-BS-4014). While proceeding from Bharatpur to Mathura near IOCL Depot, a UPSRTC bus (Reg. No. UP-14-BT-5799) driven rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle, causing fatal injuries. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, held that the bus driver was solely negligent and awarded Rs. 1,04,00,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. The appellant challenged the award on the grounds of negligence and quantum. The High Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, found that the Tribunal's finding on negligence was based on proper appreciation of evidence, including the FIR and panchnama, which showed that the bus driver was at fault. The appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove contributory negligence. On quantum, the High Court noted that the deceased was a bright student with a promising future, and the Tribunal had correctly applied the multiplier of 18 as per Sarla Verma and deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses. The compensation awarded was just and reasonable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's award was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Negligence - Burden of Proof - In a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the initial burden to prove negligence lies on the claimant, but once the claimant adduces evidence of the accident and the involvement of the vehicle, the burden shifts to the owner/driver to show absence of negligence. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, held that the bus driver was solely negligent. The High Court found no perversity in the finding. (Paras 4-6) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - The appellant Corporation argued contributory negligence on the part of the deceased motorcyclist. However, the Tribunal found that the bus driver was solely negligent as the bus came from the opposite direction and hit the motorcycle. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove contributory negligence. (Paras 5-6) C) Motor Vehicles Act - Quantum of Compensation - Multiplier and Dependency - The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 and deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses of the deceased, who was a 22-year-old bachelor. The High Court held that the multiplier of 18 was correctly applied as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and the deduction of 1/2 was proper. The compensation of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- was found to be just and reasonable. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the UPSRTC bus driver negligent and in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- to the claimants.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and award dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad in MACP No.174 of 2016.
Law Points
- Negligence in motor accident claims
- burden of proof
- contributory negligence
- quantum of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
