The doctrine of contributory negligence cannot be applied in the absence of cogent evidence, and the court may decline to reduce the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal based on the factual circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the said Act”) filed by the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, challenging the judgment dated 3rd May 2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (“the Tribunal”), in Claim Petition No.205 of 2013.

2. Shri H. N. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that primarily the issues raised in the appeal are with respect to the aspect of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased motorcyclist and the interest of 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment to submit that the deceased Manohar Manikrao Agarkar was riding a motorcycle and the accident occurred on a U-turn of Katol Warud Road within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Katol, when the Xylo vehicle, which is insured by the appellant-Insurance Company, dashed/hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Learned counsel would submit that considering the fact that the said accident has occurred on a U-turn of the said road, and as found by the Tribunal from the extent of damage caused to the motorcycle, which was found at a distance of 6 feet, the dead body of the deceased Manohar found lying to the west side of the road at a distance of 50 feet, clearly indicates that the deceased was riding a motorcycle at a high speed and from the wrong side. Learned counsel would also submit that this fact of contributory negligence clearly emerges from the police papers. He would further submit that there is a violation of Section 129 of the said Act, as the deceased found was not wearing a protective helmet at the time of the incident and the postmortem report clearly gives the cause of death as head injury. Shri. Verma, learned counsel, would therefore submit that the aspect of contributory negligence on this count has been completely ignored by the Tribunal and the decision deserves to be set aside on this count.

4. With respect to the interest of 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal on the amount of compensation from the date of the petition till realization of the amount of compensation to the claimants, he would submit that this rate of interest is far too high, considering the lending rate of the Reserve Bank of India which is 6% per annum. Learned counsel refers to the decision of this Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique and Others, First Appeal No.1202/2019 with Cross Objection(St.) No.1525/2021 decided on 26.2.2022 where even though the Tribunal had granted the compensation with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till final realization, this Court in its judgment dated 26th February 2022 has directed the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till final realization.

5. On the other hand, Shri. A.S.Ghatole, learned counsel for respondents-claimants would submit that the Tribunal has rightly not held this case to be a case of contributory negligence. Learned counsel also refers to paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment and submits that despite the same findings, the Tribunal has clearly observed that the driver of Xylo vehicle was driving the same from public road and ought to have taken reasonable care and caution, while driving the vehicle from the road having U-turn. He submits that it has also been observed that he was driving the vehicle at a fast speed and fast speed suggests that he was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently. The front and the rear tyres of the said vehicle were found punctured, its fiber parts of the right side mudguard were found broken. The fact that the two tyres of the said Xylo vehicle got punctured and it dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased suggests that the driver of the Xylo vehicle had lost control over the said vehicle. That he must have been driving the said vehicle at a fast speed because of which he cou