AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present First Appeal is filed by Reliance General Insurance SHANKAR KADAM Co. Ltd., the insurer of the offending vehicle (Tempo bearing registration No.MH06/BG-156), under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Judgment and Award dated 27/01/2023 passed by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Mangaon, in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 48 of 2015. The MACT allowed the claim and granted a compensation of Rs. 5,60,000/- along with interest at @5% p.a. to the Claimants. The Appellant-Insurer seeks appeal of the impugned award on grounds of liability, quantum, and alleged breach of policy conditions, contending that the Tribunal erred in deciding the liability of the insurer and in computing compensation contrary to statutory principles and settled judicial precedents.
The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are narrated in brief as under:
It is the case of claimants that, on 05/02/2015 deceased Kasturi Vaibhav Datar was traveling along with claimants on motorcycle bearing registration No.MH06/BK-5487 from Nagothane towards Mangaon. When the motorcycle reached in the vicinity of Village Sukeli, at that time Tempo bearing registration No.MH06/BG-156 came from back side and gave dash to the motorcycle bearing registration No.MH06/BK-5487. Deceased Kasturi fell on road. The tyre of tempo went on her head and she died on the spot. In cross-examination he admitted that at the time of accident motorcycle had jumped in pothole. During cross-examination, it was suggested to the witness that the accident was caused by his own negligence; this suggestion was categorically denied.
The Claimants contended that the Tempo driver, drove rashly and negligently, coming from behind and hitting the motorcycle causing the deceased to fall and be run over, whereas the Appellant/Insurer argued in defence that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider (Claimant No. 1), who admitted in cross-examination that the motorcycle jumped into a pothole, leading to the fall, and that the Tempo driver bore no responsibility. Respondent No.1, (Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its manager) filed a written statement at Exh.32 denying all allegations. It is contended that Claimant No.1 was riding motorcycle MH06/BK-5487 rashly, due to which the vehicle fell into a pothole causing the claimants to fall and sustain injuries, and that the deceased died due to these injuries. It is further argued that the accident was not caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo MH06/BG-156 and therefore they are not liable. On these amongst other grounds they sought dismissal of the petition. Respondent No.2, (Shri Vinod D. Parekh) filed his written statement at Exh.17, also denying all allegations. He reiterated that the motorcycle fell into a pothole, causing injuries to the claimants and the death of the deceased, and denied any negligence on the part of the driver of the Tempo MH06/BG-156. He too prayed for dismissal of the petition.
The MACT, while addressing these conflicting versions under Issue No. 1 (“whether Kasturi Vaibhav Datar died in accident occurred on 05/02/2015 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tempo No. MH06/BG-156”), evaluated the testimony of Claimant witness 1 (the motorcycle rider), along with the FIR, Spot Panchnama, and Postmortem Report, and placed significant reliance on the physical evidence showing that the tyre of the Tempo had gone over the head of the deceased, causing fatal head injuries; and despite the cross-examination admission regarding the motorcycle jumping into a pothole, the Tribunal concluded that the decisive, fatal injury resulted from the Tempo coming from behind, dashing the motorcycle, and thereafter running over the deceased, ultimately holding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tempo No. MH06/BG-156 and answering Issue No. 1 in the affirmative.
The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 5354/2019), wherein it was held that in cases involving the death of a minor child, the notional income is to be taken as ₹30,000 per annum, inclusive of future prospects, and the appropriate multiplier of 15 is to be applied for computing compensation. Following this binding precedent, the Tribunal adopted ₹30,000 as the annual income of the deceased minor and applied the multiplier of 15 to arrive at the loss of dependency.
Learned counsel for the Appellant, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., contends that the MACT award of ₹5,60,000/- is excessive and legally flawed, necessitating its setting aside or substantial reduction. Their primary arguments centre on two points regarding negligence and quantum. Firstly, regarding negligence, the Appellant insists that the Tribunal failed to adequately consider the Claimant's own admission in cross-examination that the motorcycle fell into a pothole, arguing this constituted an act of contributory negligence by the motorcycle rider, which should lead to reduction in the award. Secondly, on quantum, while acknowledging the Supreme Court's precedent in Meera Devi, the Appellant sought to reduce the notional income of the deceased minor from ₹30,000/- per annum to the statutory minimum as prescribed for non-earning persons, relying heavily on precedents like Sona (Minor) next friend vs. Manuel C.M. and Anr. to minimize the multiplier effect. Furthermore, they argue for a direction of "Pay and Recover" against the vehicle owner thus minimizing the insurer's final liability.
Learned council for the Claimants strongly asserted that the Tribunal’s award is fully justified, legally correct, and represents the minimum just compensation for the loss of their only child. Their main defence is based on the proximate cause and binding precedent. Regardless of the presence of a pothole they maintain that the ultimate and fatal cause of death was the gross negligence of the Tempo driver who failed to stop the vehicle on time, resulting in the vehicle dashing the motorcycle and running over the child's head. On the issue of quantum, the Claimants defend the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's binding precedent in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto1, which specifically adopted ₹30,000/- per annum as the notional income and the fixed multiplier of 15 for computing the loss of dependency in the death of a minor child, thereby affirming the calculation of the loss of dependency at Rs.4,50,000/-. The Claimants supported the order of the tribunal by citing the recent Supreme Court judgment in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Anr2 and referencing the prevailing minimum wage in Maharashtra effective January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2015, arguing that the Tribunal's adopted notional income was reasonable and justified even when compared to the actual prevailing wage structure. They contend that any attempt to reduce this amount or the fixed sums granted under Conventional Heads like Parental Consortium would defeat the benevolent object of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Having considered the records of the case, the oral and documentary evidence presented before the Tribunal, and the submissions made by the respective Counsels of both the sides, this Court finds that the Tribunal correctly discharged its duty by relying on the available material, including the First Information Report and post mortem report, to establish the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tempo Number= MH06/BG-156. The finding of negligence against the driver of the offending Tempo, and the consequent liability of the Appellant, being the Insurer, is a finding of fact supported by evidence and hence no interference is required from this Court. The Tribunal was right in considering the Appellant liable to pay compensation to the Respondents as the insured (Tempo Driver) was at fault.
With regard to the challenge to the quantum of compensation is also unsubstantiated. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is strictly in compliance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India regarding the assessment of claims for the death of a minor child who is a non-earning member. The Tribunal's decision to adopt a notional annual income of Rs. 30,000/-, inclusive of future prospects, is firmly acknowledged in judicial precedents. Similarly, the application of the statutory multiplier of 15 for calculating the loss of dependency is well-established in law for cases involving minor dependents below the age of 15 years of age.
The total award of Rs. Rs.5,60,000/-, which includes the loss of dependency calculated using the Rs.30,000/- notional income and the multiplier of 15, along with just compensation under Parental consortium of Rs.40,000 to each claimant which adds up to Rs.80,000 as dictated by the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram3, compensation for loss of estate Rs.15,000 and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000, is both just and lawful. It is observed that the Tribunal has neither erred in law nor in fact in granting this amount.
In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is not perverse to cause interference therein. Appeal therefore stands dismissed.
Pending interim/civil applications, if any, stands disposed of.