LexMINU ROUT & ANR. versus SATYA PRADYUMNA MOHAPATRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 847 MINU ROUT & ANR. v. SATYA PRADYUMNA MOHAPATRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7368 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166- Compensation claim - Head-on collision between a car and a truck - Driver of the A B car died - Tribunal held that there was contributory negligence C on the part of the deceased in causing the accident, therefore, his dependents i.e. the appellants were entitled to get dependency compensation only to the extent of 50% for the fault of the offending truck - Order affirmed by High Court - On appeal, held: 50% deduction out of the total loss of D dependency compensation determined by the Tribunal was not correct - In absence of rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal erroneously placed reliance upon the charge-sheet filed against the driver of the offending truck and deceased to hold there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased E ignoring the fact that the criminal case against him had abated - Finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, was erroneous for want of proper consideration of pleadings and legal evidence by both of them. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- s.166 - Compensation claim - Head-on collision between a car and a truck - Husband of the first appellant, who was working as driver of the car, died F - Deceased was 35 years of age - Dependents of the deceased i.e. the appellants claimed compensation - G Tribunal awarded Rs.1,92,0001- towards loss of dependency and further Rs.50001- and Rs.30001- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, love and affection respectively and thus 847 H 848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A in total, a compensation of Rs.2,00,0001- with interest@ 6% p.a - Compensation awarded by Tribunal approved by High Court - Justification - Held: Not justified - Appellants entitled to enhanced compensation - Judicial notice should have been taken of the fact that the post of a driver is a skilled job 8 - Though the claim of appellants was Rs.50001- as monthly salary of the deceased, for determining the loss of dapendency, the actual entitlement of the salary of the deceased should have been taken at Rs. 60001- per month by the Tribunal for awarding just and reasonable compensation, C which is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court - Further, 30% of future prospects of the decea~ed should be added to the monthly income while 1!3rd should be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased - Multiplier of 16 to be applied as deceased was aged 35 years - Appellants accordingly entitled to amount of D Rs. 9, 98, 4001- towards loss of dependency - Further, taking into consideration all the expenses incurred for the funeral and sudhi ceremonies and towards Joss of love and affection by the surviving child and the first appellant wife, award of Rs.50,0001- is just and reasonable under the conventional E heads- Total compensation thus amounting to Rs.10,48,4001 - - Insurance Company liable to pay the same as the offending vehicle was insured with it alongwith interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of application till the date of payment. F The husband of the first appellant was working as a car driver. He died on account of a head-on collision between his car and a truck. The second appellant is the son of the deceased, who was minor at the time of the accident. G The appellants filed compensation claim before the H Motor Accident Claims Tribunal contending that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver and that at the time of the accident, the deceased was having good · MINU ROUT & ANR. v. SATYA PRADYUMNA 849 MOHAPATRA health and earning a sum of Rs.5000/- per month which A was mostly contributed to the appellants for their livelihood. The owner of the truck did not contest the proceedings. Respondent No. 1, driver of the truck, also did not file any counter statement. Respondent No.2, New India Assurance Company, however, opposed the B claim of the appellants, contending that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to head on collision between the two vehicles and both the C drivers were equally responsible for the occurrence of the accident, and, therefore, the appellants were entitled to get c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.