Widow And Two Children Get ₹6.37 Lakh As P&H HC Finds Maxi-Cab Driver Solely At Fault, With Trolley On Kaccha Portion of Road

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the deceased contributed to the accident by overtaking the tractor-trolley.

The court held

The Court held that the accident resulted solely from the maxi cab driver’s rash and negligent driving and allowed the appeal.

It also directed

It assessed total compensation at Rs. 6,37,500, including an enhancement of Rs. 4,37,500 over the Tribunal’s award. The enhanced amount was payable with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, except that interest on the conventional heads was payable from August 2017 until realization. Apportionment and liability remained as provided in the Tribunal’s award.

01Facts

The appellants, the deceased Harbhajan Singh’s wife and two children, appealed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award arising from a collision on 23 October 2001 involving the deceased’s scooter and a maxi cab driven by respondent No. 1.

pp. 1–2

The Tribunal found contributory negligence on the deceased’s part, deducted 50%, and awarded the claimants Rs. 2,00,000.

p. 1, 4

The claimants challenged both the negligence finding and the assessment of compensation.

pp. 2–5

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the deceased contributed to the accident by overtaking the tractor-trolley.

pp. 1–4

ii.Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation, including future prospects and amounts under conventional heads.

pp. 4–7

03Law Applied

Contributory negligence cannot be presumed; it must be supported by evidence of an act or omission by the deceased that contributed to the accident.

p. 3

For calculating loss of dependency, the Court applied National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, for the addition of future prospects, and Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121, for the multiplier and deduction for personal expenses.

p. 6

The Court applied a 25% addition for future prospects for a deceased aged 49, a multiplier of 13, and a one-third deduction where there were three dependants.

p. 6

04Reasoning

The eyewitness, Jeet Singh (PW-3), was accepted as having been present and his account was unrebutted. His evidence placed the tractor-trolley on the kaccha portion of the road, leaving the deceased’s lane available; the Tribunal’s contrary understanding that the trolley obstructed the road was therefore unsupported.

pp. 2–4

As no act or omission by the deceased establishing contribution was shown, the finding of contributory negligence was set aside.

pp. 2–4

On compensation, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at Rs. 3,750 and dependency income at Rs. 2,500, then added 25% for future prospects, applied the multiplier of 13, and deducted one-third for personal expenses.

pp. 5–7