Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a fatal motor accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The parents of the deceased Ruban Rajasekar filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, seeking compensation for the death of their son. The deceased was a 29-year-old Professor of Aeronautics and Engineering at Hindustan University, Padur, earning a claimed monthly income of Rs.50,000. On 17.11.2020, while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 22 CZ 2091 on the Bangalore to Chennai National Highway, a car bearing registration No.TN 23 CV 4806, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his motorcycle. He sustained fatal injuries and died on 18.11.2020. The offending car was owned by the first respondent and insured with the appellant insurance company, and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, after examining witnesses including the mother of the deceased, a professor from the university, and an eyewitness, and considering documents including pay slips and the FIR, concluded that the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver. It fixed the deceased's monthly income at Rs.35,000, applied a multiplier of 17 considering his age, deducted 50% towards personal expenses as he was unmarried, and awarded a total compensation of Rs.48,30,700 under various heads, including loss of dependency, loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and transportation charges. The insurance company appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the deceased had contributed to the accident by riding without a helmet and without a valid driving licence, and that at least 50% negligence should be attributed to him. The claimants opposed the appeal, arguing that the insurer had not produced any evidence to show lack of valid licence, that the deceased possessed a Learner's Licence, and that the compensation awarded was based on settled principles. The High Court examined the evidence and held that the insurer had not let in any evidence to substantiate its allegations of contributory negligence or lack of valid licence. It noted that the appellant did not even seek framing of an issue on contributory negligence. The court observed that possession of a Learner's Licence does not disqualify a person from riding a motorcycle on a National Highway, and that no evidence was adduced to prove that the deceased was required to have an instructor. The court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's fixation of income, application of multiplier, or deduction for personal expenses, relying on the principles laid down in Sarala Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. It also referred to M.Nithya v. SBI General Insurance Company Limited for the proposition that allegations in a counter affidavit without supporting evidence cannot be considered. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the award of the Tribunal was confirmed with no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Negligence and Contributory Negligence - Burden of Proof - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - Tribunal's finding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car driver based on eyewitness PW3 and FIR/final report was upheld; appellant insurer did not adduce contra evidence or seek framing of issue on contributory negligence due to non-wearing of helmet; mere allegation in counter affidavit without evidence cannot be considered. Held that contention of contributory negligence rejected. (Paras 5,10,13) B) Motor Accident Compensation - Determination of Income and Multiplier - Principles from Sarala Verma and Pranay Sethi - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - Tribunal fixed monthly income of deceased at Rs.35,000 based on salary slips and professor's testimony, applied multiplier 17 for age 29, deducted 50% for personal expenses as deceased was unmarried, and awarded loss of dependency of Rs.47,10,666; appeal court found no infirmity. Held compensation confirmed. (Paras 6,12,13) C) Motor Vehicle Driving Licence - Learner's Licence - Validity and Disqualification - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - Appellant alleged deceased had no valid driving licence; claimants showed deceased possessed Learner's Licence (LLR); court held that possession of LLR does not disqualify a person from riding a vehicle on National Highway, and no evidence was produced to show requirement of instructor or invalidity. Held that contention of invalid licence rejected. (Paras 11,13) D) Insurance Liability - Joint and Several Liability - Policy Coverage - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - Tribunal held owner and insurer jointly and severally liable because insurance policy Ex.P5 was in force; appeal court affirmed. Held policy covers liability. (Paras 5,11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the car driver negligent and not attributing contributory negligence to the deceased for riding without helmet and without valid driving licence; whether the deceased possessed a valid Learner's Licence and whether that disqualified him from riding; whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and fair with respect to income fixation, multiplier, and deduction for personal expenses.
Final Decision
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; the award dated 28.07.2025 in MCOP.No.476 of 2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai was confirmed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.
Law Points
- Insurance company alleging contributory negligence must plead and prove with evidence
- mere counter affidavit allegations insufficient
- Learner's Licence does not disqualify a person from riding a motorcycle on National Highway
- compensation based on proven income
- multiplier 17
- 50% deduction for unmarried deceased is proper
- Tribunal's finding on negligence based on eyewitness and FIR upheld
