Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manubhai Chaturbhai Thakor, was the original claimant in a motor accident claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He sustained injuries when his vehicle crashed into the back of a truck owned by respondent no.1 (Dosti Road Carriers) and insured by respondent no.2 (insurance company). The accident occurred allegedly due to the truck driver applying sudden brakes. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Nadiad, by judgment and award dated 11th December, 2012 in MACP no.2101 of 2010, rejected the claim petition holding that the claimant was solely negligent. The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Act. The High Court heard the appellant's advocate, Mr. Hiren M. Modi, and the insurance company's advocate, Mr. Rushang D. Mehta. The court examined the pleadings and evidence, particularly the claimant's examination-in-chief at Exh.26, which consistently stated that the truck ahead applied sudden brakes causing the collision. The Tribunal had not considered the possibility of contributory negligence by the truck driver. The High Court found the Tribunal's finding of sole negligence to be perverse and based on no evidence. It held that the claimant had established a prima facie case of contributory negligence. The court set aside the impugned award and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on the quantum of compensation, directing the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Appreciation of Evidence - Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The claimant, an injured victim, alleged that the accident occurred due to sudden brakes applied by the truck ahead, causing him to crash into its backside. The Tribunal held the claimant solely negligent. The High Court found that the Tribunal failed to consider the claimant's consistent evidence and the possibility of contributory negligence by the truck driver. Held that the finding of sole negligence was perverse and set aside, remanding for fresh assessment of compensation. (Paras 5-8) B) Motor Accident Claims - Rejection of Claim - Perverse Finding - Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal rejected the claim petition solely on the ground of the claimant's negligence without considering the truck driver's contributory negligence. The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding was based on no evidence and was perverse, warranting interference under Section 173. Held that the appeal is allowed, the impugned award is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication on quantum. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the claimant solely negligent for the accident and rejecting the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 11th December, 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Nadiad in MACP no.2101 of 2010 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal shall decide the claim petition afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence
- burden of proof
- appreciation of evidence
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- Section 173
