A civil appeal against an award of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding on negligence and quantum but reduced the future interest rate from 12% to 9% p.a.
Compensation remains at Rs.1,92,000/- but interest award reduced to 9% p.a.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
FIRST APPEAL NO.415 OF 1994.
Manager Parbhani Pamji Dept., Goa
& Anr. : Appellants.
versus
Haribai Anandrao Gaikwad & ors. : Respondents.
Mr.G.S.Hegade with Mr.A.R.Bhole for the
appellants.
Mr.R.S.Ghadge for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J.
DATED : 6th April 2005.
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr.Hegade for the appellants and
Mr.Ghadge for the respondents/claimants. This
appeal is filed against the order of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara dated 16th
December 1993 wherein the Opponent Nos. 1 to 3
were jointly and severally made liable to pay
Rs.1,92,000/- including no fault liability to the
2
claimants with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
2. Three persons were going by Java
motor-cycle on 15th April 1987. The driver of
the appellant’s bus Datta Walwaikar was going
from Goa to Pune. He was driving the bus bearing
No.GDX 151. The speed of his bus was 50 to 55
k.m. per hour. He saw two bullock-carts coming
from one after other from the other side i.e.
from Pune side. Behind those bullock-carts was
the motor-cycle with three persons. When he saw
the motor cycle he reduced the speed, but the
motor cycle dashed against the bullock cart and
all the three riders were thrown away. According
to him, the motor cycle skidded and came under
his luxury bus. Therefore, it is the case of the
appellants that the appellant was not at all at
fault and, the finding of the tribunal that the
appellant was negligent to the extent of 80% is
contrary to the record. It is this finding
coupled with the quantum fixed by the tribunal,
that is being challenged in this appeal.
3. So far as quantum is concerned, the age
of the deceased was 30 years. The tribunal
applied multiplier of 20 and, awarded
3
Rs.1,92,000/- including no fault liability. His
dependency was taken at Rs.1,000/- per month.
Therefore, Mr.Hegade, appearing for the
appellants, contended that firstly the appellants
could not be held liable at all in the accident.
Secondly, the multiplier of 20 was wrongly
applied and, therefore, alternatively the amount
of compensation is required to be reduced.
Thirdly, he contended that awarding interest at
the rate of 12% p.a. is not proper in the
circumstances and prevailing interest rate.
4. As against this, it was the case of the
respondents/claimants before the tribunal that on
15th April 1987 deceased Balkrishna Gaikwad with
his cousin brother were going on his motor cycle
from Raigaon to Panchwad. The time was 7.30 p.m.
The deceased was driving the motor cycle. They
were going by left side of the road in a moderate
speed. Near village Udatare, the luxury buss of
the appellants came from behind and gave a
forcible dash to the motor cycle and the riders
of the motor cycle were thrown away and sustained
injuries. The bus carried the motor cycle of the
deceased up to a distance of 60 to 70 feet.
Deceased Balkrishna sustained two injuries to his
4
head and other part of his body and died in the
accident.
5. The question is, therefore, whether the
findings of the tribunal regarding negligence of
the appellants and holding them liable to the
extent of 80% are proper? Both the parties
examined witnesses in support of their
contentions. On behalf of the claimants one eye
witness Satish Jadhav was examined as Witness
No.2 for the applicant. He has stated that on
the date of accident he was going to Khandala on
scooter. When he reached village Udatare, a Java
motor cycle over took him and went ahead. A
luxury bus of the appellants over took him and,
the luxury bus was over taking Java motor cycle
when it gave dash from behind to the motor cycle.
The speed of the luxury bus was about 80 k.m.
per hour. Both the motor cyclists were lying
injured. He reported the matter to the police
station. There were two persons on the motor
cycle. He was contradicted with his FIR wherein
he has stated that there were three persons on
the motor cycle. The tribunal came to the
conclusion that there were three persons on the
motor cycle, that has to be accepted as true.
5
6. On behalf of the appellants, the driver
of the bus was examined. He has stated that the
bus had a governor and, therefore, he could be go
beyond the speed of 60 k.m. per hour at the
relevant time when the bus came near that village
the speed of his vehicle was 50 to 55 k.m. per
hour and then he has stated about coming of
bullock carts from opposite direction and the
motor cycle brushing against the bullock cart,
skidding and coming under his bus. In the cross
examination he replied that when the written
statement or reply came to be filed he has no
informed or instructed his advocate that two
bullock carts were coming from Pune side. He
also did not tell his advocate that the motor
cycle dashed against the bullock cart and three
persons were thrown away. It that is so, then
the theory put forth by the witness viz. the
driver of the bus, is admittedly an improvement.
7. Apart from that a perusal of the
panchanama of scene of offence and the inquest
panchanama of body of deceased Balkrishna will
show that the theory put forth in defence by the
appellants is not at all sustainable. If two
6
bullock carts were coming from opposite direction
and the motor cycle was following them, then the
motor cycle over took one of the bullock carts,
but brushed against the wheel of the bullock cart
and skidded on the road and, the bus at that
juncture coming from opposite direction,
therefore, if such an accident occurred then the
persons going by motor cycle would fall on that
side of the road by which the bus was coming and
they would directly come under the wheel of the
bus. Inquest panchanama of deceased Balkrishna
shows that he had injuries on his forehead and
both of his thighs were fractured. There is no
injury report about the other persons sitting on
the motor cycle. But looking to these injuries,
the defence raised by the appellants was rightly
disbelieved by the tribunal.
8. So far as spot panchanama is concerned,
it shows that the bus of the appellants was in
speed, may by it was high way and the buses or
vehicles were usually going in speed and Java
motor cycle was also in speed, but it is the
question of deciding two different versions. The
version given by the respondents/claimants on the
basis of oral evidence of the witness and the
7
spot panchanama supports their theory that it was
negligence of the driver of the appellants’ bus.
9. The tribunal has fixed ratio of
negligence between 80% that of the appellants and
20% of the deceased. I do not find any mistake
in those findings and, so far as this aspect is
concerned, no interference is called for.
10. Alternatively, Mr.Hegde, appearing for
the appellants, contended that so far as quantum
is concerned, the tribunal applied multiplier of
20. The age of the deceased as per his
certificate of date of birth was 30 years at that
time. According to Mr.Hegade, multiplier of 14
should have been applied at the most. There is
substance in this submission. However, as
rightly argued by the counsel for the
respondents/claimants it is equally true that
when the deceased was earning Rs.2800/- per month
at the relevant time, he was serving in BOmbay
and his family was at native place, the
dependency was, however, taken by the tribunal at
Rs.1000/-, that is totally inadequate and
improper. It is true that the wife of the
deceased could not file any money order copy to
8
show as to how much her husband was sending per
month. But the family at native place would
require more share of earning of the husband and
not to Rs.1,000/-. So in any case if the amount
of Rs.1,000/- per month is improperly taken by
the tribunal then that have to be enhanced.
There is no cross appeal. But the fact remains
that injustice has been caused to the claimants
in this regard. Therefore, in the circumstances,
compensation awarded at Rs.1,92,000/- that to
including no fault liability calls for no
interference.
11. Thirdly, it was contended by Mr.Hegade
that the future interest awarded by the tribunal
at the rate of 12% p.a. is not proper. In other
matters also looking to the present trend of
awarding interest this Court has awarded interest
at 9% p.a. Hence the following order :-
:ORDER:
The order of the tribunal is to remain as
it is. However, amount of compensation
will carry interest at 9% p.a. from the
date of petition till recover in stead of
9
12% p.a.
No order as to costs.
[D.G.DESHPANDE]
06/04/2005 JUDGE.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding of 80% negligence against the appellants should be disturbed.
Whether the award of compensation and interest rate requires interference.
Whether the interest rate of 12% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
other mattersReferred¶48
unspecified
Manager Parbhani Pamji Dept.
Haribai Anandrao Gaikwad
D.G.Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court