In an appeal filed before the Rajasthan High Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against a judgment and award dated 01-06-2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (MACT), whereby the claim petition was partly allowed, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Taneja enhanced the compensation awarded by Rs. 3,94,321/- and directed the payment of the same within two months.
On 21-04-2010, the victim was riding a motorcycle with his relatives as pillion riders when a jeep, driven by respondent 1 in a negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, because of which the victim suffered injuries and subsequently died. The claimants claimed Rs. 79,45,000/- as compensation for the victim’s death. The respondent insurance company denied the liability of the claim, stating that the accident occurred due to the deceased victim’s negligence and that he did not possess a valid driving license.
MACT allowed the claim petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs. 4,49,384/- along with interest at 6% p.a. Dissatisfied, the claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.
The claimant asserted that the deceased was a barber, which is considered to be a skilled job, and that his monthly income ought to have been calculated based on the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker.
Regarding the liability for contributory negligence levied upon the deceased to the extent of 20%, the Court referred to Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh & Ors. 2008 (12) SCC 436, and Mohammed Siddique & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. and said that driving a motorcycle without a valid driving license and with two pillion riders may be a violation of the MV Act, but it cannot by itself become a basis to make the deceased liable for contributory negligence, unless there is a specific finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.
Hence, the Court considered that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the jeep driver and opined that the MACT was not justified in holding the deceased liable for contributory negligence, while setting aside MACT’s finding regarding the same. Further, in the absence of evidence regarding the deceased’s income, the Court calculated the monthly income on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker at the time of the incident, i.e., Rs. 115/- per day.
The Court held that each one of the claimants were also entitled to Rs. 40,000/- under the head of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. Additionally, it was held that a 25% addition would be made to the deceased’s income for future prospects. Thus, the compensation awarded was enhanced by Rs. 3,94,321/-, which the respondents were directed to deposit within two months.
Lastly, the Court directed that the enhanced amount would bear interest at the rate as per the award passed by the MACT and disposed of the appeal.
Appearances:
For Appellants – Mr. Aditya Sharma, Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta
For Respondents – Mr. Arvind Sharma, Ms. Manorma Sharma, Ms. Manju Chauhan
