Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY(BENCH AURANGABAD)
S.G. MEHARE, J.
Lalitabai W/o. Manmathappa Patwari – Appellant
Versus
Ramprasad S/o. Yamabrahama & Ors.- Respondents
First Appeal No. 263, 238 of 2000
Decided on : 07-07-2022
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation - Sections 166, 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act - [JUST COMPENSATION] - [MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL] - [Sections 166, 171]
Fact of the Case:
The deceased and the injured's legal representatives contested a common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The deceased and his injured wife were involved in a motor vehicular accident, resulting in the deceased's death and the wife's permanent disablement. The claimants sought compensation based on the deceased's income and their dependency. The truck owner and insurers contested the claim, alleging contributory negligence and breach of insurance policy conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the appellants, determining that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation, applying the multiplier, and granting interest. The court concluded that the appellants were entitled to just compensation, interest from the date of the claim, and quashed the impugned award.
Issues: The court analyzed the adequacy of compensation, application of the multiplier, and the grant of interest from the date of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the income of the deceased at the time of the accident is the sole criteria for assessing loss of dependency, and future prospects should be considered for self-employed individuals. The court also emphasized the need to assign reasons for refusing interest from the date of the claim.
Final Decision: The court allowed both appeals, quashed the impugned award, and awarded just compensation with interest from the date of the claim to the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
1. The legal representatives of the deceased and the injured have impugned the common award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Aurangabad in M.A.C.P, Nos. 107/1991 and 108/1991 dated 22.11.1999.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the claimants in M.A.C.P. No. 107/1991, are the wife, sons and daughter of the deceased. In M.A.C.P. No. 108, the claimant is the injured and the wife of the deceased Manmath. A bajaj make Tempo bearing registration No. MH-24/16 and a truck bearing registration No. AIW 4797 were involved in the accident. The non-applicant no.1 and 4 were the owners of a Tempo and the truck, respectively. The Tempo was insured with non-applicant no.3, and the truck was insured with non-applicant no.5 at the time of the accident.
3. On 04.01.1991, the deceased Manmath and his injured wife Lalitabai were travelling in a Bajaj make Tempo along with other passengers. At about 7.30 a.m., the Tempo reached near village Ajantha. That time the truck came from the opposite, driven by its driver without proper care, in a rash and negligent manner, gave dash to the Tempo. The dash was so severe that it separated the rooftop of the Tempo and damaged the engine completely. The passengers in the Tempo sustained serious injuries. Deceased Manmath had succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said motor vehicular accident. The claimant Lalitabai sustained injuries to her both legs and wrist. The injuries caused her permanent disablement. The deceased Manmath was a teacher and the L.I.C. agent. His injured wife is a housewife, and two children were minor at the time of the accident. The applicants were dependent on the income of the deceased. Based on the income of the deceased and their dependency, the applicants have claimed Compensation of Rs. 6 lacs. Besides the death claim, the injured Lalitabai claimed the compensation of Rs.50,000/.
4. The truck owner proceeded to ex-parte. The non-applicant no.3 and 5 have contested the claim by submitting their written statements. They have not denied the insurance of the respective vehicles on the date of the accident. Non-applicant no.3 has come with a defence that the passengers in the Tempo were travelling on fare. It is a breach of insurance policy conditions. It is denied that the Tempo driver was driving the Tempo rashly and negligently. Therefore, the insurer/non-applicant no.3 is not liable to pay the compensation.
5. The non-applicant no.5 has come with a defence that there was a head-on collision between both vehicles. The driver of the truck alone is not responsible for causing the accident, and it is a case of contributory negligence. The claim against it is not maintainable. The truck driver had no valid driving licence during the accident. The injured Lalitabai had suffered no permanent disablement due to the injuries she sustained in the accident; hence her claim is not tenable.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants and learned counsel Shri Chapalgaonkar for respondent/non-applicant no.3.
7. The following points arise for the determination of this Court, and the findings thereon are recorded for the reasons to follow.
| Points | Findings |
| 1) Do the appellants prove that the M.A.C.T., has not awarded just compensation? | Affirmative |
| 2) Do the appellants prove that the latest multiplier should be applied? | Affirmative |
| 3) Do the applicants prove that they are entitled to the interest from the date of application? | Affirmative |
| 4) What Order? | As per final Order. |
Points Nos. 1 and 2:
8. Both these points are intermingled; hence, they are taken up for discussion together.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the deceased was a teacher and also a L.I.C. agent. He had a salary of Rs. 3,038/- p.m. and his last commission from the L.I.C. agency was Rs.62,185/-. The applicants
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
