Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 20.08.2015 passed by the Additional Court of Small Causes, Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mysuru in MVC No. 1229/2012, awarding compensation of Rs. 13,27,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. to the claimants (respondents 1 to 3), who are the wife, mother, and minor son of deceased Gururaj. The deceased died in a road accident on 10.03.2012 involving a motorcycle (driven by the deceased) and a luxury taxi bearing No. KA-05-C-9735. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation. The Tribunal held the taxi driver (respondent No. 4) solely negligent and awarded compensation. The insurer (appellant) challenged the award on grounds of contributory negligence and excessive compensation. The High Court heard the insurer's counsel and perused records. The claimants, driver, and owner remained unrepresented. The Court found that the accident occurred at a junction and the deceased was not wearing a helmet, indicating contributory negligence. The Court attributed 25% contributory negligence to the deceased. On compensation, the Court noted the deceased was a bachelor aged 28 years, earning Rs. 7,000/- per month as per Tribunal's assessment. Applying Sarla Verma, the Court deducted 50% towards personal expenses (instead of 1/3rd) and applied multiplier 18 (instead of 17). The Court calculated loss of dependency as Rs. 7,000 x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs. 7,56,000/-. Adding Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 50,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses, and Rs. 5,000/- for transportation, total compensation was Rs. 9,36,000/-. After deducting 25% contributory negligence, the net compensation was Rs. 7,02,000/-. However, the Court also considered the Tribunal's award of Rs. 13,27,400/- and reduced it to Rs. 9,22,400/- (apparently a calculation error in the judgment). The appeal was partly allowed, reducing the compensation to Rs. 9,22,400/- with interest at 6% p.a.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The deceased Gururaj, a pillion rider on a motorcycle, died in a collision with a luxury taxi. The Tribunal held the taxi driver solely negligent. The High Court, on appeal by the insurer, found contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as he was riding without a helmet and the accident occurred at a junction. Held that contributory negligence of 25% should be attributed to the deceased. (Paras 5-7) B) Motor Accident Claims - Computation of Compensation - Deduction towards Personal Expenses - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The deceased was a bachelor aged 28 years. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The High Court held that for a bachelor, 50% should be deducted towards personal expenses as per Sarla Verma v. DTC. (Para 8) C) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The deceased was aged 28 years. The Tribunal applied multiplier 17. The High Court held that the correct multiplier for age 28 is 18 as per Sarla Verma. (Para 8) D) Motor Accident Claims - Income Proof - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The claimants claimed the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as a driver. The Tribunal assessed income at Rs. 7,000/- per month. The High Court upheld this assessment as there was no documentary proof of income. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering contributory negligence of the deceased and in awarding excessive compensation.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Compensation reduced from Rs. 13,27,400/- to Rs. 9,22,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition till realization. 25% contributory negligence attributed to deceased.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence
- Motor accident compensation
- Deduction towards personal expenses
- Multiplier method
- Income proof
