AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Cross Objection is preferred by the appellant-claimant against the Judgment and Order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) Sangli in Motor Accident Claim Application No. 31 of 2008.
It is contention of learned counsel for cross-objectioner that2025:BHC-KOL:4254 the Tribunal has considered 50% contributory negligence of the deceased which is erroneous. Learned counsel further submitted that the accident occurred at night time when the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle and offending tractor was standing on road without putting any parking light or signal. Due to darkness, deceased could not notice the said tractor trolley and gave dash to it from backside. The driver of the tractor did not step into the witness box, to prove the negligence of the deceased. The offence was registered against driver of the tractor, but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. Consortium is awarded on lower side and requested to allow the Cross Objection.
It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company that deceased gave dash to offending tractor from backside. The motorcycle had headlights. The deceased must have noticed the stationed tractor in the said headlights, but his motorcycle was in high and excessive speed. Hence, the said accident occurred. The Tribunal has rightly considered 50% contributory negligence of the deceased and requested to dismiss the Cross Objection.
I have heard both the learned counsels, perused the2025:BHC-KOL:4254 impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Tribunal. It is claimant’s case that on 13th November 2007 at about 8.00 p.m., deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle on Miraj-Kolhapur road to Jaysingpur. The offending tractor with trolley was parked on road without any parking light. Due to darkness, the deceased could not notice the said trolley and gave dash to it from backside. Due to dash, he sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries while taking treatment. The offence was registered against the driver of the tractor. To prove the negligence of the driver of the tractor, the claimants have relied on police papers. While deciding the issue of negligence, the Tribunal has observed that there was 50% contributory negligence of the deceased in the said accident as he gave dash to the trolley from backside. He could have avoided the trolley and passed from the remaining part of the road. I am unable to understand the observations of the Tribunal as the accident had occurred at 8.00 p.m. There was darkness, the offending tractor with trolley was stationed on the road without any parking light.
In my view, when any vehicle is stationed on the road as per the provisions of Central Vehicles Rules, it is the obligation on the driver of said vehicle to put on parking lights or indicators of said2025:BHC-KOL:4254 vehicle.
“ Section 15 in the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989:
15. Parking of the vehicle:-
(1)Every driver of a motor vehicle parking on any road shall park in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users and the manner of parking is indicated by any sign board or markings on the road side, he shall park his vehicle in such manner.
(2)A driver of a motor vehicle shall not park his vehicle:
(i)at or near a road crossing, a bend, top of a hill or a humpbacked bridge;
(ii)on a foot-path;
(iii)near a traffic light or pedestrian crossing;
(iv)in a main road or one carrying fast traffic;
(v)opposite another parked vehicle or as obstruction to other vehicle;
(vi)alongside another parked vehicle;
(vii)on roads or at places or roads where there is a continuous white line with or without a broken line;
(viii)near a bus stop, school or hospital entrance or blocking a traffic sign or entrance to a premises or a fire hydrant;
(ix)on the wrong side of the road;
(x)where parking is prohibited;
(xi)away from the edge of the footpath.”
“Regulation 28 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulation: Vehicle breakdown:
In case a vehicle with more than two wheels has broken down at a place where it can be recognised in time as a stationary obstacle,-
(i). the hazard warning lights of the vehicle shall be switched on immediately;
(ii). on highways and major roads with fast speed, reflective traffic warning triangles shall be placed at a distance of fifty meters behind the broken-down vehicle; and In present case, it shows that the driver of the said Truck has clearly violated all the rules and regulations of 2025:BHC-KOL:4254 the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, Motor Vehicle Rules and the Rules of the Road and Regulation, 1989, and Regulations made under the Act.” .......…
“When any vehicle is stationed on the road at night time, as per Rule 109 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, proper precautions are necessary to be taken. It reads thus:-
109. Parking light:-
[Every construction equipment vehicle, combine harvester and motor vehicle] and every motor vehicle other than motor cycles and three wheeled invalid carriages shall be provided with one white or amber parking light on each side in the front. In addition to the front lights, two red parking lights one on each side in the rear shall be provided. The front and rear parking lights shall remain lit even when the vehicle is kept stationary on the road: Provided that these rear lamps can be the same as the rear lamps referred to in rule 105 sub-rule (2): [Provided also that construction equipment vehicles [and combined harvesters], which are installed with food light lamps or sports lights at the front, rear or side of the vehicle for their off highway or construction operations, shall have separate control for such lamps or lights and these shall be permanently switched of when the vehicle is travelling on the road.]”
These rules states that front and rear parking lights shall remain lit when the vehicle is kept stationary on the road. The offence was registered against the driver of the tractor, but these facts are not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, I hold that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the tractor and set aside the observations that there was 50% contributory negligence of the deceased. The Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. As per the view of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the claimants are entitled2025:BHC-KOL:4254 for 50% future prospects. The Tribunal has awarded consortium on lower side. As per the view of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC), each claimant is entitled Rs. 48,000/- for consortium amount, Rs. 18,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses.
Considering above calculations, the claimants are entitled for following compensation:
| Loss of Income | Rs. 4800/- |
| Yearly income | Rs. 57,600/- |
| Personal deduction 1/3rd (3 claimants) | Rs. 38,400/- |
| Future prospects increased by 50% of the income being deceased aged 39 years | Rs. 38,400/-+ Rs. 19,200/- = Rs. 57,600/- |
| Multiplier 15 X Rs. 57,600/-(age of deceased 39 years) | Rs. 8,64,000/- |
| Medical bills spent | Rs. 1,05,000/-(already awarded) |
| Total | Rs. 9,69,000/- |
| Consortium Rs. 48,000/- X 3 (claimants) | Rs. 1,44,000/- |
| Loss of Estate | Rs. 18,000/- |
| Funeral Expenses | Rs. 18,000/- |
| Total | Rs. 1,80,000/- |
| Total Compensation (Rs. 9,69,000/-+ Rs. 1,80,000/-) | Rs. 11,49,000/- |
| Less already awarded (Rs. 11,49,000 - Rs. 3,50,000) | Rs. 7,99,000/- |
| Total compensation | Rs. 7,99,000/- |
In view of above, I pass following Order: 2025:BHC-KOL:4254
O R D E R
I. The Cross Objection is allowed.
II. The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,99,000/- at 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing claim petition till realization of the amount. Out of this amount, Rs. 1,80,000/- is consortium amount, the claimants are entitled @ 7.5% interest per annum on it from 1st November 2017, till realization of the amount.
III. The Respondent No. 4-Insurance Company shall deposit enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest thereon, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
IV. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon.
V. The claimants shall pay deficit Court fees on enhanced amount, as per Rule, if any.
VI. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal.
All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.