Bombay High Court Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation Due to Contributory Negligence of Deceased. Deceased motorcyclist without helmet and license contributed to accident, reducing insurer's liability under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present appeal was filed by the Insurance Company (United India Insurance Company Limited) challenging the judgment and award dated 12th February 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 588 of 1999. The claimants, Chaban Hanumant Divekar and Suman Chaban Divekar, parents of the deceased, had sought compensation for the death of their son in a motor vehicle accident. The deceased was riding a motorcycle without a helmet and without a valid driving license when he was hit by a vehicle owned by respondent No. 3, Umesh Ramesh Pardeshi. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,84,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The Insurance Company appealed on the ground that the deceased was negligent and contributed to the accident. The court considered the evidence and found that the deceased was driving without a helmet and without a license, which amounted to contributory negligence. The court held that the Tribunal erred in not apportioning liability. The court reduced the compensation by 50% to Rs. 1,92,000, applying a multiplier of 16 based on the deceased's age of 35 years and monthly income of Rs. 3,000. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the award accordingly.

Headnote

A) Motor Vehicles Act - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - Deceased motorcyclist was driving without helmet and without valid driving license, contributing to the accident - Held that the Tribunal ought to have considered contributory negligence and apportioned liability accordingly - Appeal allowed in part, compensation reduced by 50% (Paras 5-10).

B) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Quantum - Deceased aged 35 years, earning Rs. 3,000 per month - Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,84,000 - Held that multiplier of 16 was appropriate but contributory negligence reduces amount - Modified award to Rs. 1,92,000 with interest (Paras 11-15).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the contributory negligence of the deceased motorcyclist who was driving without a helmet and without a valid driving license, and whether the compensation awarded was excessive.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal partly allowed. The judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,92,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount within eight weeks.

Law Points

  • Contributory negligence
  • Apportionment of liability
  • Motor accident compensation
  • Negligence of deceased
  • Insurance liability
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (04) 5

First Appeal No. 729 of 2005 with Civil Application No. 7937 of 2004

2018-04-27

Smt. Vibha V. Kankanwadi

Mr D.V. Soman for appellant; Mr Pramod Patni for respondent Nos. 1 and 2

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited

Chaban Hanumant Divekar, Suman Chaban Divekar, Umesh Ramesh Pardeshi

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition for compensation for death in motor vehicle accident.

Remedy Sought

Insurance Company sought reduction of compensation on ground of contributory negligence of deceased.

Filing Reason

Insurance Company challenged the award on the ground that the Tribunal did not consider contributory negligence of the deceased who was driving without helmet and without valid driving license.

Previous Decisions

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad awarded Rs. 3,84,000 with interest at 9% per annum in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 588 of 1999 on 12th February 2004.

Issues

Whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence? Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant (Insurance Company) argued that the deceased was driving without helmet and without valid driving license, contributing to the accident. Respondents (claimants) argued that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle owned by respondent No. 3.

Ratio Decidendi

A person driving a motorcycle without a helmet and without a valid driving license contributes to the negligence in the accident, and the compensation must be apportioned accordingly. The multiplier method is appropriate for calculating compensation.

Judgment Excerpts

The deceased was driving the motorcycle without helmet and without valid driving license. This amounts to contributory negligence. Considering the contributory negligence, the compensation is reduced by 50%.

Procedural History

Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 588 of 1999 was filed by the parents of the deceased before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad. The Tribunal awarded compensation on 12th February 2004. The Insurance Company filed First Appeal No. 729 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, which was decided on 27th April 2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation Due to Contributory Negligence of Deceased. Deceased motorcyclist without helmet and license contributed to accident, reducing insurer's liability un...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Compounding Application in FEMA Case, Directs RBI to Consider on Merits. RBI's Refusal to Compound Contraventions on Ground of Sensitive Nature Requiring Investigation Set Aside as Unreasoned.