Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Anita Rajendra Sonwane and ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.1876 of 2024, Civil Application No. 7793 of 2024 In FA/1876/2024
Decided On : 03-04-2025
Advocate for Appellant: Mr. A.B Gatne
Advocate for Respondents 1-4: Mrs. S T Kazi R/6 Deleted.
Compensation for accidental death must be based on actual income after deductions, and contributory negligence requires direct evidence to be established.
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation for accidental death - Claimants awarded Rs.44,95,000/- by MACT, later modified to Rs.42,36,490/- by High Court - Claimants contended that deceased was the breadwinner, while insurer argued for contributory negligence and excessive compensation - Court found no direct evidence of negligence on deceased's part, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to establish contributory negligence - Compensation reassessed based on actual income and deductions for professional tax. (Paras 1-14)
(B) Negligence - Presumption of contributory negligence - Court ruled that without direct evidence, presumption cannot be drawn against the deceased driver. (Paras 6-10)
(C) Compensation assessment - Court clarified that actual income less deductions should be the basis for calculating compensation, and non-pecuniary compensation should not overlap. (Paras 11-14)
Facts of the case:
The claim arose from a fatal accident involving the deceased, Rajendra Sonawane, who was driving a car that collided with a truck, resulting in his death. The claimants, his dependents, sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's award was modified to Rs.42,36,490/- based on a reassessment of income and deductions.
Issues: The main issues included the determination of negligence and the appropriate amount of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without direct evidence, the presumption of contributory negligence cannot be established, and compensation must be calculated based on actual income after necessary deductions.
Result: First Appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant/original respondent no.2-insurer impugns the judgment and award dated 9.6.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal at Dhule in MACP No.928 of 2010, by which a compensation of Rs.44,95,000/- has been awarded to the Respondents/claimants. (Parties hereinafter are referred to as per their original status).
2. Respondent nos.1 to 4 instituted MACP No.928 of 2010 before the MACT, at Dhule raising claim for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act towards accidental death of late Rajendra Sonawane. It is the contention of the claimants that on 26.10.2010 Rajendra was driving Maruti Car bearing registration No.MH-12/AX-7498 from Dhule towards Sakri. While he reached near Tamaswadi Fata on Nagpur-Surat Highway, offending truck bearing registration no.AP-16/TY-3229 came from Sakri side and gave forceful dash to the Maruti Car. Late Rajendra suffered multiple injuries in the said accident and lost his life. According to claimants, late Rajendra was 39 years of age and employed as teacher. He was holding agricultural land and generating income from its cultivation. Claimants were dependent on him. They lost bread earner of the family.
3. Respondent no.2/insurer contested the claim by filing written statement firstly on the ground that it is a case of contributory negligence and claim as raised is excessive and exorbitant. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the evidence allowed the claim petition, directed respondent nos.1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay the compensation of Rs.44,95,000/- to the claimants alongwith interest @ 8% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition.
4. Mr. Gatne, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that evidence on record clearly depicts that accident occurred in the center of road. There was head on collision between two vehicles. As such, Tribunal ought to have recorded finding of contributory negligence of the deceased Rajendra/driver of the car. He would further submit that, as per salary bill for September, 2010, Rajendra received Rs.21,610/-. Tribunal erroneously considered his earning at Rs.24,777/- p.m. without statutory deductions towards Professional Tax, Income Tax, etc. He submits that amount of Rs.1.00 Lakh each towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is contrary to the law espoused by the Supreme Court of India.
5. Per contra Smt. S.T Kazi, learned advocate appearing for respondents supports the judgment and award as passed by the Tribunal.
6. I have gone through the pleadings and evidence recorded before the Tribunal. Apparently, incident was reported to the police immediately after accident on the complaint given by Venkat Devrao Pawar, who himself is a police officer. He records that accident occurred in the center of road between car and the truck and vehicles were removed to clear flow of traffic. Spot panchnama also records that accident occurred in the center of road at the center strip. Aforesaid documents are admitted in the evidence and placed at Exhibit-16 and 17 respectively, claimants relied upon the aforesaid documents to prove the accident. In this background, Mr.Gatne, learned advocate appearing for the appellant/insurance company submitted that head on collision of the vehicles raises presumption of contributory negligence of both drivers. He places reliance on observations of the Supreme Court of India in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Premlata Shukla & Ors. reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3591. According to him, Tribunal ought to have recorded finding of contributory negligence and proportionately deducted the compensation amount.
7. Per contra Smt. Kazi, learned advocate appearing for respondent relying upon the exposition of law in case of Jiju Kuruvila and others Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 2293 and Mangal Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 1900 and submits that no such presumption can be drawn on the basis of contents
