IMPORTANT POINT
Where the total width of the tarred portion of the road was 22 feet and there were mud shoulders on either side having a width of three feet, car driver s failure to swevere to the extreme left side of the road when the offending truck from the opposite direction had come to the central portion of the road, did not amount to negligence. It would, if at all, only prove that the car driver had not shown extraordinary precaution.

Headnote:(i) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section-Accident claim-Reduction of amount from Rs. 9,98,500/- to Rs. 4,72,600/-Appeal-Appellant was under treatment for a period of 5 months-Appellant doing business of a commission agent-High Court fixed income of appellant at Rs. 4,100/- p.m.-Loss of earning for a period of 5 months assessed at Rs. 20,500/-Future loss of income fixed at Rs. 13,93,600/-.
       Held : The High Court has given valid reasons for reduction of the amount. The High Court held that the monthly income of the appellant would have been Rs. 4,100 p.m. and by applying the multiplier of 8 years, the claim should be Rs.3,93,600 towards the future loss of income. We do not think that the multiplier adopted by the High Court is wrong or the amount of compensation granted for the future loss of income is inadequate. We also do not think that the High Court erred in fixing the quantum of compensation. (Para 5)
       (ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section-Contributory negligence-Concept of-Standard of reasonable man-Appellant was driving a fiat car-Truck came from opposite side at excessive speed-Car hit the right side of that truck and collided with rear right side wheels of the truck-Total width of road was 22 ft.-There were mud shoulders on either side having a width of three feet-Offending truck had come to central position of the road-Appellant s failure to swerve to the extreme left of the road-Whether amounted to contributory negligence ?-(No)-Appellant had not shown extraordinary precaution.
       Held : The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant s part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression "contributory negligence" it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an "author of his own wrong." Subject to non-requirement of the existence of duty, the question of contributory negligence is to be decided on the same principle on which the question of defendant s negligence is decided. The standard of reasonable man is as relevant in the case of plaintiff s contributory negligence as in the case of defendant s negligence. But the degree of want of care which will constitute contributory negligence, varies with the circumstances and the factual situation of the case. (Paras 8 and 9)
       It has been accepted as a valid principle by various judicial authorities that where, by his negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger, which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence if that other acts in a way, which, with the benefit of hindsight, is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-The claimant in a motor accident claim case is the appellant before us. The appellant was driving a Fiat car through National Highway No.8 on 7th February, 1976, on his way to Surat from Ahmedabad and when the car reached near Ankleshwar, a truck bearing registration No. GTC 4735 came from the opposite side at excessive speed and the car driven by the appellant hit the right side of the said truck and collided with the rear right-side wheels of the truck. The truck, which was loaded with goods, toppled over to its right side and came to a halt at a distance of about 20 feet. As a result, the appellant, his wife and another friend, who were occupants of the car, sustained injuries. They preferred claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The three claim petitions were tried jointly and the claims preferred were allowed. In this appeal, we are only concerned with the claim petition preferred by the appellant. The appellant had claimed a total compensation of Rs. 9,98,500 and the entire claim was allowed. Against that award, the respondent Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and in the appeal, it was held that the appellant was entitled to get compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,72,600. However, the High Court held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant to the extent of 30% and proportionate deduction was made from the total compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

2. We heard Mr. Sunil Dogra, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. K.L. Nandwani, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

3. As regards the amount of compensation due to the appellant, the High Court held that the Tribunal had seriously erred in fixing the total compensation. The High Court held that the award of Rs. 2,36,099 towards the actual loss of income and another sum of Rs. 4,71,510 towards the loss of future income and Rs. 2,32,381 towards loss of expectancy of profit were on the higher side and that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 20,500 for actual amount of loss of income and another Rs. 3,93,600 towards loss of future income. The learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before us that the calculation made by the High Court is incorrect and the compensation amount should not have been reduced by the impugned Judgment whereas the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company supported the Judgment and contended that the award of a sum of Rs. 3,93,600 towards the loss of future income is not actually due to the appellant as there was only a partial disability suffered by him and the appellant has been continuing with his business and there was no loss of future earning on this account.

4. The High Court elaborately considered the matter and noticed that the appellant was under treatment for a period of 5 months and thereafter he started attending his business and had also gone abroad for business purposes. The appellant was doing the business of a commission agent. The Tribunal had earlier held that there was a loss of income for a period of 34 months and the monthly income was fixed at Rs. 9000 p.m. The High Court on the basis of average post-accident monthly income, fixed the income at Rs. 4,100 p.m. and held that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 20,500 as actual loss of earning for a period of 5 months.

5. As regards the future loss of income, the Tribunal had made an award of Rs. 4,71,520, whereas the High Court fixed the future loss at Rs. 3,93,600. The High Court has given valid reasons for reduction of the amount. The High Court held that the monthly income of the appellant would have been Rs. 4,100 p.m. and by applying the multiplier of 8 years, the claim should be Rs.3,93,600 towards the future loss of income. We do not think that the multiplier adopted by the High Court is wrong or the amount of compensation granted for the future loss of income is inadeq

Click Here to Read the rest of this document