Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment and order dated 12th April 2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Claim Petition No. 278 of 1994. The accident occurred on 6th April 1994 at about 12:45 am near Khapri on Wardha-Nagpur road. The deceased, Manikrao Parate, was traveling in a 5-wheeler goods auto (registration No. MH319587) which was transporting his broken-down scooter to Nagpur for repairs. The auto dashed into the rear of a truck (registration No. MH31/5115) which was ahead. The truck was insured with respondent No. 4 (United India Insurance Company), and the auto was insured with the appellant (New India Assurance Company). The Tribunal held that the driver of the auto was solely negligent because he maintained an unsafe distance of only 15 feet from the truck, and thus attributed no contributory negligence to the truck driver. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants (respondent No. 1, the widow, and others) and directed the appellant insurer to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the auto (respondent No. 2) due to breach of policy conditions (the driver did not hold a valid driving licence). The appellant challenged the findings on contributory negligence and the absence of apportionment of liability between the two insurers. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding on contributory negligence, stating that the conclusion reasonably arose from the evidence and was not perverse. Regarding the pay and recover direction, the Court noted that the appellant had not challenged the finding of breach of policy conditions, and the Tribunal's direction was in accordance with law. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Appreciation of Evidence - The Tribunal found that the driver of the 5-wheeler auto was solely negligent as he maintained an unsafe distance of 15 feet from the truck ahead. The High Court held that this finding reasonably arose from the evidence and did not warrant interference, even if another view was possible (Paras 2-3).
B) Motor Accident Claims - Pay and Recover - Breach of Policy Conditions - The Tribunal directed the insurer of the 5-wheeler auto to pay compensation and then recover from the owner due to breach of policy conditions (driver not holding valid licence). The High Court upheld this direction, noting that the insurer had not challenged the breach finding, and the pay and recover mechanism is permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in not attributing contributory negligence to the truck driver, and whether the Tribunal should have directed apportionment of liability between the two insurers on a pay and recover basis.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence
- Apportionment of liability
- Pay and recover
- Breach of policy conditions
- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 180
First Appeal No. 456 of 2005
Shri A. J. Pophaly for appellant, Shri S. N. Kumar for respondent no. 1, Shri M. M. Kalar for respondent no. 4
The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, D.O. I, Gopalkrishna Bhawan, Sitabuldi, Jhansi Rani Square, Nagpur
1) Smt Anita wd/o Manikrao Parate, 2) Wasudeo s/o Namdeorao Tivaskar, 3) Vishwapal Janbandhu, 4) The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, City Branch, Medical Square, Nagpur, 5) Narayanrao Parate (appeal abated against him), 6) Kasabai w/o Narayanrao Parate
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against judgment and order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition for compensation arising from a motor vehicle accident.
Remedy Sought
The appellant insurer sought to challenge the Tribunal's finding on contributory negligence and the absence of apportionment of liability between the two insurers.
Filing Reason
The appellant insurer was aggrieved by the Tribunal's order holding the auto driver solely negligent and directing the appellant to pay compensation with a right to recover from the owner.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, by judgment and order dated 12th April 2005 in Claim Petition No. 278 of 1994, awarded compensation and directed the appellant insurer to pay and recover.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in not attributing contributory negligence to the truck driver.
Whether the Tribunal should have directed apportionment of liability between the two insurers on a pay and recover basis.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the truck driver was also negligent and that liability should be apportioned between the two insurers.
Respondents no. 1 and 4 supported the Tribunal's finding that the auto driver was solely negligent and that the pay and recover direction was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The finding of sole negligence of the auto driver reasonably arose from the evidence and did not warrant interference. The direction to pay and recover was proper as the appellant did not challenge the breach of policy conditions.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Member has appreciated the entire evidence available on record in this regard and found that the distance of 15 feet occurring between the two vehicles at the time of accident was quite unsafe and, therefore, the learned Member placed entire blame for the accident on the head of the driver of 5wheeler auto which was trailing behind the truck in question.
The conclusion so drawn by the learned Member of the Tribunal, in my view, does reasonably arise from the facts established on record although another view could possibly also have been taken by the Tribunal.
Procedural History
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, passed judgment and order on 12th April 2005 in Claim Petition No. 278 of 1994. The appellant insurer filed First Appeal No. 456 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the same. The appeal was heard and dismissed on 27th June 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
