IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J.
United India Insurance Company Ltd, Namakkal – Appellant
Versus
Selvam & Others – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 2734 of 2019
Decided On : 09-03-2023
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 173 - 173 - 2018 (1) TNMAC 34 (SC), 2021 SCC Online SC 3339 - The court discussed the contributory negligence of the deceased, the relevance of the FIR, and the determination of fair compensation. The court relied on the judgments in Nishan Singh and Ors Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and Ors, Dinesh Kumar, J @ Dinesh, J vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd, and K.Anusha and Others vs. Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd to interpret the legal provisions and arrive at its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation for the death of Mr. Mohankumar in a road accident. The insurance company denied liability, citing contributory negligence of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the insurance company 50% liable due to contributory negligence of the deceased. It upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Issues: Contributory negligence, relevance of FIR, determination of fair compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FIR is not sacrosanct and cannot be the sole basis for rejecting a claim for compensation in a fatal accident. It also considered the contributory negligence and the determination of notional income for fair compensation.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2018, made in M.C.O.P. No.1527 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Additional District Judge), Namakkal.)
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 23.11.2018 in M.C.O.P.No.1527 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Namakkal), awarding a sum of Rs.11,59,200/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, at the instance of the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal viz., the insurance company.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudicating the grounds raised before this Court are as follows:
The claimants viz., the respondents 1 to 3 herein sought for a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of Mr.Mohankumar, S/o Mr.Selvam in a road accident on 04.09.2015. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in his two wheeler on Salem-Namakkal National Highway and at about 08.30 a.m, a lorry bearing registration No. TN-28-AE-1576, proceeding in the same direction and before the two wheeler driven by the deceased, without any signal applied sudden brake as a result of which the deceased suffered head injuries and that he was subsequently admitted to hospital and treated. However, the said Mohankumar succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident and died on 26.09.2015. The claimants are the father, mother and sister of the deceased. It is further stated that deceased Mohankumar was aged only 19 years and he was pursuing his second year B.E course. Compensation was claimed under various heads totalling in all Rs.40,00,000/-.
3. The appellant herein as the 2nd respondent filed a counter denying that the driver of the lorry was at fault. The counter also put forth an interesting contention that the FIR was lodged by the friend of the deceased himself, who infact was a pillion rider along with the deceased and that he having suffered injuries, has filed an independent claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.283 of 2016. It is further contended in the counter that in the said FIR it has been mentioned that the deceased tried to ride the bike in between the lorry and another private college bus and therefore, the deceased contributed to the accident by his rash and negligent driving. It is also stated that even though the rules permit only one pillion rider, the deceased was driving the bike with two pillion riders, both of whom have filed independent claim petitions alleging that the deceased Mohankumar alone was at fault. In short, the appellant contended that they are not liable to compensate the fanciful claims made by the respondents 1 to 3 herein.
4. Before the Tribunal, the father of the deceased the 1st respondent herein was examined as P.W.1 and an eye witness, Mr.Manivannan was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P.1 to 17 were marked on the side of the respondents. On the side of the appellant one Mr.Palanichmay, Deputy Manager of the insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked on the side of the appellant.
5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record and with regard to the rival submissions made by the counsel on either side, held that the insurance company had not proved, by examining any eye witness, with regard to the fastening of entire liability on the deceased. However, the Tribunal taking note of the evidence held that the deceased contributed to the accident and fixed 50% towards contributory negligence. With regard to the compensation to be awarded to the respondents herein, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,400/- per month and applied a multiplier of 18 and awarded a sum of Rs.18,14,100/- towards loss of income. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.4,69,000/- towards medical bills/expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation expenses
The court emphasized the relevance of contributory negligence, the interpretation of the FIR, and the determination of fair compensation in fatal accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The relevance of the FIR in determining liability and the calculation of notional income and deduction towards personal living expenses in fatal accident compensation cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the apportionment of negligence between the parties involved in the accident and the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Lorry parked without lights/reflectors on road at night constitutes full negligence; no contributory negligence if victim's hasty action results from created danger; notional income for young enginee....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the deceased's income, future prospects, and personal expenses.
The court emphasized just compensation post-accident by adjusting the initially awarded amount, reinforcing the significance of negligent parties in determining liability and ensuring just outcomes i....
Contributory negligence cannot be presumed solely based on the violation of law; a causal connection to the accident must be established.
Liability for motor accident compensation determined based on the driver’s negligent actions, with the court emphasizing contributory negligence principles and proper evaluation of income for compens....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.