Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident that occurred on 04.04.1997 at Tulani Bus Stop, Ordnance Factory, Nagpur. The deceased, Buddulal, was attempting to board a stationary city bus (MH12/R1124) when another city bus (MH12/F8442) came from behind and knocked him down, causing fatal injuries. The claimants, his widow and two minor children, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both buses and also held the deceased equally contributory negligent. The Tribunal computed the total compensation at Rs.7,65,000, but reduced it by half due to contributory negligence, awarding Rs.3,82,500 with interest. The appellant, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), appealed against the award, contending that the compensation was excessive. The High Court examined the only issue of whether the compensation was just and proper. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in taking into account a revised salary instead of the actual salary at the time of accident, and that the multiplier and deductions were not as per Sarla Verma. The Court found that the Tribunal had correctly applied the principles but made errors in the multiplier and deduction for personal expenses. The Court held that the multiplier should be 13 (instead of 16) as per the age of the deceased (45 years), and the deduction for personal expenses should be 1/4th (instead of 1/3rd) as there were three dependents. The Court also upheld the addition of 30% towards future prospects. After recalculating, the compensation was reduced to Rs.3,51,000, but since the claimants did not appeal, the Court did not reduce the award and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Deceased attempting to board a stationary bus was knocked down by another bus coming from behind - Tribunal found equal contributory negligence on part of deceased - Held that finding of contributory negligence is not perverse and is based on evidence (Para 5). B) Motor Accident Claims - Computation of Compensation - Multiplier - Tribunal applied multiplier of 16 based on age of deceased (45 years) - As per Sarla Verma, multiplier for age 41-45 is 14, but deceased was 45 years, so multiplier should be 13 - Held that multiplier of 13 is appropriate (Para 6). C) Motor Accident Claims - Deduction for Personal Expenses - Deceased had 3 dependents (wife and two minor children) - Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses - As per Sarla Verma, for 2-3 dependents, deduction is 1/4th - Held that deduction should be 1/4th (Para 7). D) Motor Accident Claims - Future Prospects - Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects based on salary at time of accident - As per Sarla Verma, for deceased aged 45 years, addition of 30% is appropriate - Held that addition of 30% is correct (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is upheld, though the Court noted that the multiplier and deduction were not strictly as per Sarla Verma, but since the claimants did not appeal, the award is not reduced.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence
- Multiplier as per Sarla Verma
- Deduction for personal expenses
- Just compensation under Motor Vehicles Act
