Assessment of compensation and contributory negligence under the Motor Vehicles Act

CAV Judgment

1.

Challenging the award dated 28/02/2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband (CG) in claim case No.14/2015, the appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) on account of death of their son Rajeev @ Raja Sharma in an accident that occurred on 19/12/2014 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No.CG-04-J-2247 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent No.3.

2.

As per claim application, the deceased was working as Finance and Retail Officer at Sonalika Tractors, Krishna Tractors in a truck and was earning Rs.12,000/- from his job and Rs.6,000/- as commission, total Rs.18,000/- per month, therefore, total compensation of Rs.48,40,000/- was claimed. The claim application was resisted by respondents 1 and 2 on various grounds and Respondent No.3 / insurance company took a plea that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased himself. The deceased and his friend were drunk. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

3.

On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed issues, decided those issues in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded aforestated compensation.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. The truck was parked on middle of the road without any indicator and therefore, the finding with regard to contributory negligence is bad in law and needs to be set aside. He further submits that the income of the deceased was Rs.18,000/- which was proved and not been considered properly. It is also submitted that multiplier has also been wrongly applied and the amount on other conventional heads is also on the lower side.

5.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the award and submits that from the evidence brought on record particularly Yogesh Dubey (AW3), it is established that the vehicle was parked on the road and still there was sufficient space left to bypass the offending vehicle. It is submitted that it was also found that the deceased and his friend were in drunk condition which is reflected from the post mortem report. Therefore, finding with regard to contributory negligence is justified and does not require any interference. He supports the award and submits that the income could not be proved in accordance with law, therefore, just compensation has been awarded. It is also submitted that amount on other heads is also proper. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the award.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.

7.

First point which is requires indulgence of this Court is as to whether the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation or it requires suitable enhancement of this Court. So far as assessment of monthly income of the deceased to Rs.17,200/- is concerned, the same has not been seriously disputed by learned counsel for the appellants / claimants. Learned Tribunal taking this monthly income and after addition of 40% future prospects subtracted 50% for personal expenses and applying multiplier of 10, loss of dependency came to Rs.14,44,800/- and further awarded Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and thus awarded compensation of Rs.14,74,800/-. Learned Tribunal has correctly added 40% future prospects and correctly subtracted ½ for personal expenses of the deceased, however, fell in error in applying multiplier of 10. The deceased was aged about 26 years hence, in the light of Amrit Bhanu Shali and ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 and in view of decision in the case of .Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121,.appropriate multiplier would be 17. Hence, this Court re