1. Motor vehicle accident claim — Compensation for death — Dispute over contributory negligence and quantum of compensation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1890
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.Abdul Nazeer, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Mamta & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Bhav Singh @ Mansingh & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7176 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 32805 of 2018)
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Important Points
Contributory negligence and calculation of compensation based on income and loss of future prospects.
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation
Headnote
Negligence - Motor Vehicle Accident - Contributory Negligence - Compensation
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after the death of Vinod Rajak in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal and the High Court held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and awarded compensation. The appellants appealed seeking enhancement of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the deceased was not responsible for the accident and awarded a higher compensation of Rs.20,23,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
Issues: Contributory negligence, Justification of compensation awarded
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part which has materially contributed to the damage caused. It held that the deceased was not responsible for the accident and awarded compensation based on his income and loss of future prospects.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the respondent-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Yadunandan Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Reepak Kausal, Advocate, Mr. Satyendra Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Panwar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate, Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Advocate, Mr. P. Srinivasan, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Mr. Yadunandan Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Reepak Kausal, Advocate, Mr. Satyendra Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Panwar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate, Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Advocate, Mr. P. Srinivasan, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Appellants challenged the finding of contributory negligence and the adequacy of compensation; respondent supported the High Court's award. (Para 6 )
3. The offending vehicle stopped suddenly without signaling, causing the accident; no evidence substantiated the deceased's negligence. (Para 8 , 10 )
4. Contributory negligence requires an act or omission by the claimant that materially contributes to the damage through failure to use reasonable care. (Para 9 )
5. Appeal allowed — Contributory negligence set aside — Compensation enhanced and Insurance Company directed to deposit the amount with interest. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. What constitutes contributory negligence in motor vehicle accidents?
Contributory negligence occurs when a claimant's act or omission materially contributes to the damage caused, typically through a failure to use reasonable care for their own safety or property. (Para 9 )
7. How is the loss of dependency calculated for compensation in fatal accidents?
It is calculated based on the deceased's annual income, adding a percentage for future prospects, deducting a portion for personal expenses, and applying a multiplier based on the age of the deceased. (Para 11 )
8. What additional heads of compensation are awarded in fatal motor vehicle accidents?
Beyond loss of dependency, compensation includes loss of consortium for dependents, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. (Para 11 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are the wife, children etc. of one Vinod Rajak. Vinod Rajak died in a motor vehicle accident which had occurred on 15.12.2011. Therefore, the appellants filed Claim Case No.40 of 2013 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, (for short, 'Tribunal') seeking a total compensation of Rs.43,20,000/-. The respondent-Insurance Company had entered appearance and opposed the claim petition.
3. On the basis of the materials placed on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased as also the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,11,750/-with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
4. The appeal, M.A. No.956 of 2013, filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, was partly allowed. The High Court awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,73,058/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the deceased was also negligent and responsible for the accident to an extent of 50%. It was also argued that compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court is on a lower side. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company has sought to justify the impugned order of the High Court.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on the record.
8. As noticed above, the accident had occurred on 15.12.2011. It is clear from the materials on record that on the fateful day, the deceased was driving dumper of his owner and was going to Bhitarvar after unloading the soil at the Harsi Canal. During this time, the owner of the offending dumper who was driving the same himself was going ahead of the deceased, had suddenly stopped his dumper in a negligent manner without giving any signal by which the dumper driven by the deceased dashed to the offending dumper. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to death on the spot. Immediately after the accident, PW-2 lodged a report at Exhibit-4 against the driver of the offending dumper. The dumper of the accused was seized from the spot and its driver was arrested.
9. It is settled law that contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part which has materially contributory to the damage caused. Negligence ordinarily means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an author of his own wrong.
10. No material has been produced by the respondent to substantiate that the deceased was responsible for the accident in any manner. Having regard to the above, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal as also the High Court were not justified in holding that the deceased was also responsible for the accident.
11. The deceased was aged 24 years at the time of the accident. Having regard to the materials placed on record, it is just and proper to hold the income of the deceased of Rs.8,000/- per month. One-fourth of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. The multiplier applicable to the case of the deceased is 18'. The appellants are entitled to 40% of the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects. Thus, the appellants-claimants are entitled for the compensation as under:
| 1. | Annual Income of the deceased (per annum) | Rs.8000 x 12 = 96,000/- |
| 2. | Future Prospects | 40% added (96 |
