Bus Driver Alone At Fault In Fatal Jeep Crash, Gujarat HC Raises Owner’s Family’s Compensation To ₹41.84 Lakh

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 10% of the negligence to the jeep driver, or whether the bus driver alone was responsible for the accident.

The court held

The claimants’ appeal was partly allowed, and the corporation’s appeal was dismissed.

It also directed

The Court awarded total compensation of ₹41,84,584, including loss of dependency and conventional heads, and directed GSRTC to deposit the enhanced amount of ₹25,78,084, with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition, within ten weeks.

The enhanced amount was to be disbursed to the claimants by NEFT/RTGS after verification.

01Facts

On 18 January 1998, a bus and a jeep collided, killing the jeep’s owner, whose legal heirs filed a claim petition.

p. 1

The Tribunal attributed negligence to the bus and jeep drivers in the ratio of 90:10, assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹10,000, and awarded ₹16,06,500.

p. 1

The bus owner, GSRTC, and the deceased’s legal heirs appealed.

The claimants relied on evidence of the profits of three companies owned by the deceased to challenge the income assessment.

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 10% of the negligence to the jeep driver, or whether the bus driver alone was responsible for the accident.

pp. 2–3

ii.Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income and the resulting compensation required enhancement.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

The Court relied on the principles governing assessment of compensation in motor-accident claims.

It applied National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for the relevant compensation components, including future prospects and conventional heads.

p. 4

In calculating loss of dependency, the Court applied a 25% addition for future prospects, deducted one-fourth for personal expenses, and used a multiplier of 14 for a deceased aged 43.

p. 4

No specific statutory provision was identified in the judgment.

04Reasoning

The Court held that the charge-sheet against the bus driver prima facie indicated his responsibility, and that his testimony did not allege rash or negligent driving by the jeep driver contributing to the collision.

pp. 2–3

It therefore found the bus driver solely responsible and rejected the 90:10 apportionment.

pp. 2–3

On compensation, it considered the profit-and-loss accounts of the deceased’s three companies and evidence that he paid employees approximately ₹6,000 per month.

pp. 3–4

In light of the companies’ combined profits, it assessed his monthly income at ₹25,000, then applied the future-prospects addition, personal-expense deduction and multiplier described above.

pp. 3–4