2017 Supreme(Bom) 1007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI, J.
Basirabi wd/o Ajmal Khan - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - RESPONDENTS
FIRST APPEAL NO. 228 of 2006
Decided on : 24-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri C.A. Joshi, counsel
For the Respondent: Shri M.R. Kalar, counsel
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of contributory negligence in a motor accident case and the calculation of compensation based on the deceased's income and future prospects.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166] - The judgment discusses the contributory negligence in a motor accident case and the assessment of compensation. The court held that the deceased was not responsible for contributory negligence and awarded compensation of Rs. 12,35,000 to the claimants.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was driving a truck when it collided with another truck due to the bursting of its tyre, resulting in the death of the deceased. The claimants sought compensation for the loss of support and income.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was not responsible for contributory negligence and awarded compensation of Rs. 12,35,000 to the claimants, inclusive of the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased was responsible for contributory negligence in the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased was not responsible for contributory negligence based on the direct evidence of an eyewitness and the police investigation findings. The court also assessed the compensation based on the deceased's income and future prospects.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal were modified to award compensation of Rs. 12,35,000 to the claimants.
This appeal is preferred by the claimants, being not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akot, in Claim Petition No. 65/2005 by its impugned judgment and order dated 09/12/2005.
2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:
Appellant no.1 is the widow, appellant nos.2 and 3 are the minor children, whereas appellant no.4 is the mother of the deceased Ajmal Khan. Respondent no.3 is the father of the deceased. As per the case of the appellants, deceased was having his own Truck bearing no. MHV7907, which was used for transporting goods from Akot to nearby villages and from that business he was earning income of Rs.500/to Rs.600/per day. Moreover, the deceased was also driving the Truck bearing no. MH30A9237, which was owned by his father, respondent no.3 herein.
3. On the date of accident, on 27/07/2003, while the deceased was driving the Truck bearing no. MH30A9237, belonging to his father, respondent no.3, on Mumbai – Agra Highway and proceeding towards Akola along with his father, respondent no.3 herein, in a moderate speed and on proper side of the road, at about 10:14 a.m. near village Argaon, Truck bearing no. MP07G0724, came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. The driver's side front tyre of the said Truck, all of a sudden got burst. As a result, said Truck came on the wrong side of the road and gave dash to the Truck driven by the deceased. As a result of the said accident, the deceased died on the spot. The F.I.R. came to be lodged about this accident at Sahapur Police Station against the driver of the offending Truck bearing no. MP07G0724. The said Truck was owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.1.
4. As per the case of the appellants, on account of death of the deceased, they lost their only source of support and income and hence they claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/, however restricted their claim for the amount of Rs.10,00,000/.
5. This petition came to be resisted by respondent no.1 contending inter alia that the cause of the accident was the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. He came on the wrong side of the road and as a result of it, the accident took place. It was contended that, due to the severe dash given by the Truck of the deceased to the Truck of respondent no.2, its tyre was burst and hence Truck was damaged, resulting into the death of the driver of the said Truck also. Thus it was submitted that, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the said Truck, and hence claim petition for compensation filed by the legal heirs of the deceased, who was the tortfeasor, cannot be maintainable.
6. Secondly, it was submitted that the amount of compensation claimed by the appellants was excessive and exorbitant. It was denied that the deceased was working as driver on the Truck of his father and he was earning Rs.500/to Rs.600/per day from his own Truck and it was also denied that his income can be more than Rs.10,000/per month, as claimed by the appellants.
7. Respondent no.3, the father of the deceased filed his reply to the petition contending that it was the Truck owned by the respondent no.2, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner. He was an eye witness to the said accident, and hence according to him, the amount claimed by the appellants was just and reasonable. Moreover, said Truck was also insured with respondent no.1, and hence it is the liability of respondent no.1 to compensate the appellants.
8. On these respective pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues at Exh.29, for its consideration. In support of their case, appellant no.1 examined herself and also led the evidence of witness, by name, Ramesh Mahadeorao Guhe, the owner of Vishal Transport, to show that the deceased was earning Rs.500/to Rs.600/per day from his own Truck bear