Motorcyclist’s Heirs Win ₹8.26 Lakh More As Gujarat HC Pins Crash Solely On Activa Rider, Citing Road Scratches Showing Both Vehicles Moving

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s finding of contributory negligence should be set aside and the accident attributed solely to the Activa rider

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed. The Court held the Activa rider solely responsible for the accident and enhanced the compensation, directing payment of an additional ₹8,26,281 with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition.

It also directed

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within ten weeks, for disbursement to the claimants by NEFT/RTGS after verification.

01Facts

On 24 May 2015, a collision between a motorcycle and a Honda Activa resulted in the motorcycle rider’s death. His legal heirs brought a claim petition. The Tribunal found both riders negligent, apportioning negligence 25:75, and awarded ₹10,65,750.

¶ 1–2

The Activa’s insurer did not appeal the Tribunal’s finding attributing 75% negligence to the Activa rider.

¶ 5

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s finding of contributory negligence should be set aside and the accident attributed solely to the Activa rider

¶ 3–5

ii.Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced, including by revising the deceased’s income and applying the appropriate multiplier and conventional heads

¶ 6–8

03Law Applied

The Court considered Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656, in relation to the significance of a police charge-sheet when assessing negligence.

¶ 3

For compensation, it applied the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, including the addition for future prospects and compensation under conventional heads such as consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. The Court used the prevailing minimum wage for a skilled labourer to assess income, and applied a multiplier of 16 for a deceased aged 35.

¶ 6–7

04Reasoning

The panchnama recorded scratch marks on the road, which the Court treated as indicating that both vehicles were moving at the time of the collision. It therefore rejected the Activa rider’s account that she had parked by the roadside. Considering that evidence together with the charge-sheet, the Court concluded that the Activa rider alone was responsible; it accordingly set aside the Tribunal’s negligence finding.

¶ 5

On quantum, the Court substituted the Tribunal’s monthly income figure of ₹6,000 with the skilled-worker minimum wage of ₹7,644, added 40% for future prospects, deducted one-fourth for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 16. It also awarded consortium to six legal heirs and amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses, arriving at total compensation of ₹18,92,030.40.

¶ 6–8