High Court of Bombay Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Compensation of Rs.68,23,000 Upheld. Computation of Loss of Dependency Based on Deceased's Annual Income of Rs.12,00,000 with 50% Future Prospects and Deduction of 1/3rd for Personal Expenses.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 56
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from a motor accident claim petition filed by the widow and son of Shivram Nake, who died in a road accident on 06.09.1995. The deceased was the Vice President (Executive) of IndusInd Bank, aged 52 years, with an annual income of Rs.12,00,000. The accident occurred when a Maruti Car in which he was travelling was hit by a truck coming from the opposite side. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Insurance Company opposed the claim, alleging contributory negligence by the deceased and non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the car. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs.68,23,000/-. Both the Insurance Company and the claimants appealed. The High Court held that the Tribunal's computation of loss of dependency was correct, applying a multiplier of 9, adding 50% towards future prospects, and deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses. The court rejected the Insurance Company's arguments on contributory negligence and non-joinder, noting lack of evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objection was partly allowed by granting interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition instead of the date of the award.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Loss of Dependency - Computation - Deceased aged 52 years, Vice President (Executive) of IndusInd Bank, annual income Rs.12,00,000 - Tribunal applied multiplier of 9, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses - Held that the computation is in accordance with settled principles and does not warrant interference (Paras 2-5).

B) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Burden of Proof - Insurance Company alleged negligence of deceased but failed to lead any evidence - Held that mere pleading without proof cannot be accepted (Para 3).

C) Motor Accident Claims - Non-Joinder of Parties - Owner and insurer of car in which deceased was travelling not impleaded - Held that in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants can proceed against any or all tortfeasors; non-joinder is not fatal (Para 3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.68,23,000/- to the claimants and whether the claimants are entitled to further enhancement.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. The cross-objection filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition instead of from the date of the award. The rest of the award is confirmed.

Law Points

  • Motor Vehicles Act
  • 1988
  • Section 166
  • Section 173
  • Compensation
  • Loss of Dependency
  • Future Prospects
  • Personal Expenses
  • Multiplier
  • Contributory Negligence
  • Non-Joinder of Parties
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (12) 93

First Appeal No.1515/2006 WITH XOBJ. ST. NO.28182/2006

2018-12-22

A.S. Chandurkar

S.S. Vidyarthi for appellant, V.D. Jaisingh for respondent nos.1 to 2

United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Seepa W/o Shivram Nake, Ashish S. Nake, Harcharan Singh M. Bhatia

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against award of compensation in motor accident claim

Remedy Sought

Insurance Company sought reduction of compensation; claimants sought enhancement

Filing Reason

Aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding Rs.68,23,000/-

Previous Decisions

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, partly allowed claim petition on 25.10.2005

Issues

Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.68,23,000/-? Whether the claimants are entitled to further enhancement?

Submissions/Arguments

Insurance Company argued that the accident was due to negligence of deceased and that owner and insurer of car were not impleaded. Claimants argued that the compensation awarded was inadequate and sought enhancement.

Ratio Decidendi

In a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants can proceed against any or all tortfeasors; non-joinder of other tortfeasors is not fatal. The computation of loss of dependency must be based on the established income of the deceased, with appropriate additions for future prospects and deductions for personal expenses, applying the correct multiplier.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Insurance Company as it is aggrieved by the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 25.10.2005, thereby partly allowing the claim petition filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein under Section 166 of the said Act and awarding compensation of an amount of Rs.68,23,000/. The facts in brief according to the claimants are that the husband of claimant no.1 and father of claimant no.2 Shivram Nake was working as the Vice President (Executive) of IndusInd Bank and was the only earning member of the family.

Procedural History

Claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. Tribunal partly allowed claim on 25.10.2005 awarding Rs.68,23,000/-. Insurance Company filed First Appeal No.1515/2006 under Section 173. Claimants filed Cross-Objection St. No.28182/2006 seeking enhancement. Heard on 24.11.2018, judgment pronounced on 22.12.2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 166, 173
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Reservation Implementation in Direct Recruitment — 100-Point Roster Not Applicable to Isolated Posts. Court held that the 100-point roster system under Government Resolution dated 29.3.1997 applies o...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Holds Landlord Not Necessary Party in Tenant's Suit Against Corporation for Demolition. The test for necessary party under Order I Rule 10 CPC is whether the suit outcome affects the legal interest of the landlord, which is not sati...