Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award holding moped rider 60% negligent. Court applied Sarla Verma guidelines to enhance income calculation. Awarded additional compensation of Rs.66,984 with interest.
Additional compensation of Rs.66,984/with 7.5% interest to be deposited by respondents.
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.1675 OF 1996
Smt.Sarita Lalit Prindavankar & Ors.
.. Appellants
versus
Ramnayak T. Dubey & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr.S.M.Railkar for the appellants.
Mr.Mohan P. Tekavde a/w Mr.Pramod Sonawane & Ms.Jayshree Gade for respondent No.2.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4th December 2009.
JUDGMENT:
. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The appellants are the original claimants in a claim petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). They filed a claim on account of death of one Lalit who died in a motor accident on 16th December 1989. The 1st appellant is widow of the deceased. The 2nd to 4th appellants are the children of the deceased and 5th appellant is the mother of the deceased.
1st respondent was involved in the accident. The said truck was insured with the 2nd respondent-insurer. It is alleged that the said truck was stranded on
2
Agra-Bombay road as the tyres and tubes of the truck had burst. The truck was loaded with steel angles which were protruding outside the body of truck by 2 to 3 feet. The deceased was a pillion rider on a moped driven by one Ramdas. The deceased died as a result of the accident. The case is that the moped on which the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider dashed against the stationery truck. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is that both the driver of the truck and the person who was plying the moped were guilty of negligence. The contribution of the person plying the moped was held to be 60%. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that total compensation payable to the appellants was Rs.2,07,000/-. After deducting 60%, the compensation was quantified at Rs.82,800/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.
3
Court Cases 121] and submitted that the multiplier and multiplicand will have to be enhanced. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent supported the impugned judgment and award. He submitted that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the person who was plying the moped contributed to the accident of the extent of 60%. He submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is called for.
4
as much as there were street lights at the place of the accident and there was sufficient place available to pass through the road. The learned Judge noted that the truck had to be haulted as a result of bursting of a tyre and tube and therefore, the driver of the truck was helpless. Considering these aspects the contribution of the driver of the truck to the accident is rightly held to be only 40%. Considering the evidence and material on record, the person who was on the driver’s seat of moped could have avoided the accident. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of the negligence is consistent with the evidence.
5
addition of the 50% of the actual salary will have to be made. Thus, by adding a sum of Rs.780/-, the total income comes to approximately Rs. 2340/- per month.
6
the additional amount, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum will have to be awarded. Hence, the appeal must succeed in part and following order is passed:
: O R D E R :
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal committed an error in apportioning 60% negligence to the moped rider.
Whether the multiplicand and multiplier should be enhanced based on the Sarla Verma guidelines for deceased with permanent jobs under 40.
What quantum of additional compensation and interest is payable to the appellants on the recalculated figure.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.Applied¶7
Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt.Sarita Lalit Prindavankar & Ors.
Ramnayak T. Dubey & Anr.
A.S.OKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court