Facts
Bhagwan Kharol, aged 24, was a pillion rider on a motorcycle when it was struck by a tempo insured with Tata AIG; he sustained fatal injuries.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5The FIR was lodged against the tempo driver, and the insurer called no witness at trial.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alibag awarded the claimants Rs.18,12,000.
Source reference: p.2, paras. 2–3The insurer appealed, challenging negligence, the dependency deduction, future prospects and other heads of compensation.
Source reference: pp.2–3, paras. 2–3The High Court accepted that the deceased earned Rs.6,000 per month from a grocery shop belonging to his parents.
Source reference: p.4, paras. 6–7Issues
1. Whether the deceased’s status as a pillion rider and the evidence on record warranted a finding of contributory negligence or reduction of the claim on that basis.
Source reference: p.3, para. 52. Whether the Tribunal correctly calculated the dependency deduction and future prospects for the deceased bachelor.
Source reference: pp.3–4, paras. 2, 6, 83. Whether the compensation awarded under the relevant heads required recalculation.
Source reference: pp.3–5, paras. 3–4, 8–9Law Applied
The Court relied on Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273, for the principle that compensation in a case of composite negligence may be claimed against the driver, owner and insurer of either vehicle.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5It applied the principles governing assessment of compensation by treating the deceased’s personal-expense deduction as one-half because he was a bachelor, and adding future prospects at 40% to the accepted income.
Source reference: p.4, paras. 6, 8Reasoning
The Court rejected the insurer’s negligence submission: the deceased was a pillion rider, the FIR named the tempo driver, and the insurer had adduced no contrary evidence.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5Applying Khenyei, it held that the claim could be pursued against the insured tempo’s owner and insurer.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5It retained the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at Rs.6,000, added 40% future prospects, and deducted one-half for personal expenses, producing annual dependency of Rs.50,400.
Source reference: p.4, paras. 6, 8Applying multiplier 18, it calculated loss of income at Rs.9,07,200 and added the specified conventional heads and dead-body transportation expenses, reaching total compensation of Rs.10,42,200.
Source reference: pp.4–5, paras. 6–9Holding
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal’s award was modified to Rs.10,42,200, payable jointly and severally by the insurer and the insured, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until payment.
Any excess deposited by the insurer was refundable with accrued interest; the claimants were permitted to withdraw the amount, subject to sums already withdrawn.
Source reference: p.6, para. 10The appeal and any pending applications were disposed of.
Source reference: p.6, paras. 11–12Original Court PDF
Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd.vsShri. Mangilal Bhairaji Kharol And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
