Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5104
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J
SMT. SNEHAL SHARAD APRADH AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
MR PARSHURAM L. GOPALLAMANI AND ANR – Respondent
FA 1311 / 2013
Mr. Jayant J. Bardeskar, Advocate for the Appellants. Ms. Jyoti Bajapyee, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
The court adjusted contributory negligence to 25% for the deceased and 75% for the dumper driver, awarding enhanced compensation and recognizing future prospects and consortium amounts as per legal precedents.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation for accident - The Tribunal initially fixed 50% contributory negligence on the deceased, which was contested by the claimants. The court found 75% negligence on the dumper driver and awarded enhanced compensation. (Paras 2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)
(B) Future Prospects - The court recognized entitlement to 10% future prospects based on established legal precedent. (Para 5.2)
(C) Consortium Amount - The court adjusted the consortium amount to align with Supreme Court guidelines, awarding Rs.48,000 per claimant. (Para 5.3)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was involved in an accident while driving a car, which collided with a dumper. The claimants argued that the dumper driver was solely negligent, while the Tribunal initially attributed 50% negligence to the deceased. (Paras 2, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the deceased was 25% negligent and the dumper driver 75% negligent, leading to an enhanced compensation amount of Rs.7,48,873 with interest. (Paras 5.1, 6)
Issues: The main issues included the determination of negligence and the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. (Paras 2, 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to reassess negligence based on eyewitness testimony and established legal principles regarding future prospects and consortium amounts. (Paras 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.7,48,873 with interest.
Oral Judgment :
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants for SHUBHADA SHANKAR enhancement of compensation.
KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA 1/7 SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2024.04.17
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the dumper but the Tribunal has fixed 50% contributory negligence of the deceased, which is erroneous. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects on compensation amount. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on lower side, it be awarded and requested to allow the appeal.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company that the deceased had given dash to the dumper from backside, the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased. An offence was registered against the deceased. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects while passing judgment and order and no interference is required in it.
4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgment and order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur. (for short “the Tribunal”).
5. It is claimants’ case that on 20th December 2008, deceased – Sharad was driving Maruti car along with his friends Rishikesh and Prashant Patil. The deceased was driving the said car on the left side of the road in moderate speed by observing traffic rules. When the said car reached in the vicinity of Sankeshwar village and he was proceeding on Pune-Banglore Highway, one dumper bearing registration No.K-35-1789 came from backside of the Maruti car, went ahead and suddenly took left turn, due to which the Maruti car of the deceased dashed to the said dumper from backside. Due to the said dash, deceased died on the spot. An offence was registered against the deceased. To prove the negligence of the driver of the dumper, the claimants have examined DW2-Prashant Patil at Exhibit -43. He has stated that on 20th December 2008, he was proceeding to Belgaum along with Sharad and Rishikesh. Deceased – Sharad was driving car and he was sitting next to him. He has further stated that deceased was driving the car in normal speed. They were proceeding on NH-4 highway. At the relevant time, there was one dumper ahead of their vehicle and that dumper was passing on a track adjoining the divider. There were two tracks to go towards Belgaum. The deceased Sharad gave light signal and also gave horn seeking side, however, the driver of the dumper did not give side, therefore, the deceased took his vehicle to the left side and abruptly, at that moment, the offending dumper without giving any signal came to the left track ,on account of which, there was an accident. The accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the dumper. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that the dumper was ahead of their vehicle and being NH-4 highway, there was continuous traffic. This witness denied the suggestion that the car dashed against the rear portion of the dumper and he is deposing falsely as deceased was his close relative.
5.1. To prove the negligence of the deceased, respondent No.2 has examined Namdeo Chavan, cleaner of the offending dumper. He has stated that the Marauti car came behind their vehicle and dashed to the left tyre of their vehicle and chassis, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the dumper. In cross-examination, he has admitted that at the time of preparing panchanama, only police, he and the driver of the dumper were present. He further admitted that the driver of the dumper was driving the vehicle in lane near the divider. While dealing with the issue of negligence, the Tribunal has observed that it appears from the record that there was negligence of both drivers in the said accident and the Tribunal has considered 50% contributory negligence of the deceased and 50% contributory negligence of the driver of the dumper. I am unable to un
