Firstly, with regard to the negligence, as held, a perusal of the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT') itself would indicate the manner in which the accident had occurred and as rightly observed both by the MACT as well as by the High Court, the accident having taken place during the month of December after it was dark, certainly, the visibility would be poor. In that circumstance, when it was a case where the truck (offending vehicle) was parked on middle of the road and the deceased had not noticed it as there was no clear indication or signal, it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as he could notice the vehicle (the truck) only when he had approached the same. {Para 3}
4. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the opinion that the conclusion, as reached, both by the MACT and the High Court that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 50% is not justified. Furthermore, when there was no explanation on the part of the driver of the truck by examining him with regard to the manner in which the accident had occurred, we are of the opinion that the entire negligence is to be fastened on the driver of the truck (the offending vehicle).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 5420 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30423/2019)
Decided On: 25.08.2023
Laxmi Devi and Ors. Vs. Mehboob Ali and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Citation: MANU/SC/1382/2023.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellants herein, are before this Court assailing the judgment dated 06.01.2019 passed by the High Court whereby, the High Court though has computed the compensation at Rs. 3,60,000/-, has awarded only 50% of the same i.e. Rs. 1,80,000/-, holding contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to the extent of 50%. In that background, though, there is no dispute with regard to the accident having occurred on 31.12.2007 and the death having occurred in the said accident, the aspect which arise for consideration in the instant appeal is with regard to the aspect of negligence and the quantum of compensation to be awarded.
3. Firstly, with regard to the negligence, as held, a perusal of the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT') itself would indicate the manner in which the accident had occurred and as rightly observed both by the MACT as well as by the High Court, the accident having taken place during the month of December after it was dark, certainly, the visibility would be poor. In that circumstance, when it was a case where the truck (offending vehicle) was parked on middle of the road and the deceased had not noticed it as there was no clear indication or signal, it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as he could notice the vehicle (the truck) only when he had approached the same.
4. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the opinion that the conclusion, as reached, both by the MACT and the High Court that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 50% is not justified. Furthermore, when there was no explanation on the part of the driver of the truck by examining him with regard to the manner in which the accident had occurred, we are of the opinion that the entire negligence is to be fastened on the driver of the truck (the offending vehicle).
5. On the aspect of the quantum of compensation, we note that in the absence of definite evidence for the income of the deceased, the High Court has the reckoned the income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. In a normal circumstance, in respect of an unskilled labour, such assumption could have been justified. In the instant facts, the case, as put forth by the claimants is that the deceased was doing the business in bangles and if, this aspect as also the aspect relating to the number of dependents on the deceased is taken note, in any event, reckoning an income of Rs. 200/- per day cannot be considered as excessive.
6. Therefore, in that circumstance, it would be appropriate to reckon the income of the deceased Rs. 6,000/- per month and award 25% of the same towards future prospects, which would be in a sum of Rs. 1,500/-. Hence, the total of Rs. 7,500/- is reckoned. One-fifth of the same would be deducted towards self expenses, which would be in a sum of Rs. 1500/-. Hence, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 6,000/- per month. If the same is taken on annual basis and multiplier of '15' is applied, it will be in a sum of Rs. 10,80,000/-. Towards the conventional heads, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- is awarded. Hence, the Appellants-claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 11,50,000/-. The High Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- which if deducted, the balance of Rs. 7,90,000/- shall be payable as enhancement with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition before the MACT till the date of payment.
7. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited by the Respondent-Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
8. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of along with the pending application(s), if any.
No comments:
Post a Comment