We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court on the 25% contributory negligence of the deceased and 75% upon the driver of the bus. We find ourselves to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue. The Tribunal rightly, after considering the evidence on record and on perusal of the Ex. P3 Spot Mahazar,came to the conclusion that there wasn’t any sufficient evidence on record, indicating that the accident occurred due to negligent driving on the part of the deceased, and after considering the oral evidence of P.W.1, held the cause of the accident to be rash and negligent on the part only of the offending vehicle. {Para 10}
11. Thus, in our considered view, the contributory negligence taken by the High Court at 25% of the deceased is erroneous. We advert to the principles laid down in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 166, where it was held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. This exposition came to be followed in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and Ors.(2015) 1 SCC 339. In the present case, therefore, on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles, for having driven at high speed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3465-3466 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.21450-21451/2023)
PRABHAVATHI & ORS. Vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN, TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Coram: SANJAY KAROL; J., PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA; J.
February 28, 2025
Leave Granted
2. The present appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 1
st October
2020, passed in MFA No.2162 of 2018 C/W MFA No.4016 of 2018 by the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru, which in turn, was preferred against the judgment and order
dated 12th December 2017 in M.V.C No. 3858/2016 passed by the IX Additional Small
Causes and Addl. MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7).
3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 6
th June 2016 the deceased,
namely, Boobalan, aged 38 years, was travelling on his motorcycle from Krupanidhi
Junction towards Madivala. The driver of the BMTC Bus (offending vehicle) bearing
registration No. KA-01/F-9555 collided with the deceased, driving his vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner, resulting in his death on the spot due to the grievous injuries sustained.
4. The Appellants (dependents of the deceased) filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/-, submitting therein that the deceased
was the only earning member of the family, working as an Executive in the Housekeeping
Department at Hotel Royal Orchid, Old Airport Road, Bengaluru; and earning upto
Rs.70,000/- per month.
5. The Tribunal, by its Order dated 12th December 2017, after considering the last
drawn salary of the deceased as Rs.62,725/- per month, awarded the Appellants an
amount of Rs.75,97,060/- along with interest @ 9% per annum and held that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the BMTC Bus.
6. Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, both parties filed an
appeal before the High Court. The appellant challenged the same on the ground that the
Tribunal incorrectly determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.62,725/- per
month, whereas the proven income as per the bank statement (Ex. P.21) should be
assessed at Rs.70,000/- per month. On the other hand, the respondent challenged the
assessment on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the
bus; instead of considering the notional income wrongly considered the income to the tune
of Rs.62,725/- as the deceased was not a permanent employee and the interest @ 9%
was excessive.
7. The High Court, vide the impugned order dated 1
st October 2020, allowed the
appeal and determined the contributory negligence at 75% on the driver of the bus and
25% on the deceased by relying upon the statements and documentary evidence on
record and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of both the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle as both were
driving at high speed and further assessed the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.50,000/- per month and awarded an enhanced amount of Rs.77,50,000/- @ 6%
interest per annum.
8. Yet dissatisfied, the claimant-appellant is now before us. The significant point raised
by the appellant is that the High Court wrongly assessed contributory negligence of the
deceased to the extent of 25%.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court on the 25% contributory negligence of the deceased and 75% upon the driver of the bus. We find ourselves to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue. The Tribunal rightly, after considering the evidence on record and on perusal of the Ex. P3 Spot Mahazar,came to the conclusion that there wasn’t any sufficient evidence on record, indicating that the accident occurred due to negligent driving on the part of the deceased, and after considering the oral evidence of P.W.1, held the cause of the accident to be rash and negligent on the part only of the offending vehicle.
11. Thus, in our considered view, the contributory negligence taken by the High Court at 25% of the deceased is erroneous. We advert to the principles laid down in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 166, where it was held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. This exposition came to be followed in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and Ors.(2015) 1 SCC 339. In the present case, therefore, on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles, for having driven at high speed.
12. Another point to be considered was that the claimants-appellants approached the
High Court seeking an enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, stating
therein that the deceased was earning Rs.70,000/- per month working as an Executive
Housekeeper at Hotel Royal Orchid, whereas the High Court assessed the income as
Rs.50,000/- per month.
13. It is the settled law that under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is established that in
compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply.
Instead, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability. This Court in
Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC (2020) 13 SCC 468 observed that:
“22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely,
the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to
calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of
negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly
bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle
accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and
not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.”
The exposition came to be reiterated in Rajwati alias Rajjo & Ors. v. United India
Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699
, wherein it was observed that :
“20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such,
while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been
established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this
Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a
criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard
of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases”.
14. In our considered view, the High Court was not justified in assessing the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.50,000/-, as this amount is relatively low, particularly in the
background of the fact that the accident occurred on 6
th June, 2016 and the Tribunal has
evidently recorded that the last drawn salary of the deceased as per Pay Slip (Ex.P.16) to
be Rs.62,725/- per month. Therefore, we affirm the findings of the Tribunal assessing the
income of the deceased to be Rs.62,725/- per month.
15. As a result of the discussion above, the compensation now payable to the claimantappellant is recalculated as follows:
CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION
S.
No.
Compensation
Heads
Amount Awarded In Accordance
with:
1. Monthly Income Rs.62,725/-
National
Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi (2017) 16
SCC 680 Para
42, 52 & 59
2. Yearly Income Rs.7,52,700/-
3. Future Prospects
(40%) (Age being 38)
7,52,700 + 3,01,080 =
Rs.10,53,780/-
4. Deduction (1/4) 7,52,700 – 2,63,445 =
Rs.7,90,335/-
5. Multiplier (13) 7,90,335 X 15 =
Rs.1,18,55,025/-
6. Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
7. Loss of Funeral
Expenses
Rs.18,150/-
8. Loss of Consortium 48,400 X 4 =
Rs.1,93,600/-
Total Rs.1,20,84,925/-
Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:
MACT High Court This Court
Rs.75,97,060/- Rs.77,50,000/- Rs.1,20,84,925/
16. The Civil Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned Award dated
12th December, 2017 in M.V.C.No. 3858/2016 passed by IX Additional Small Causes and
Addl. MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7), as modified by the High Court vide the impugned order
dated 1
st October, 2020, passed in MFA No.2162 of 2018 C/W MFA No.4016 of 2018,
stands modified accordingly. Interest is to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
No comments:
Post a Comment