In a recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the court addressed the issue of contributory negligence and compensation computation in a case involving a surviving spouse and the insurance company. The ruling has far-reaching implications in the legal landscape. Stay tuned to learn more about this pivotal verdict!
Facts
- The claim for compensation was computed as follows: a) Loss of dependency Rs 7,51,476/- b) Expenses incurred in last rites Rs.5,000/- c) Loss of love and affection Rs.5,000/- d) Loss of property Rs.2500/- Total Rs.7,63,976/-
- Applying a multiplier of 11, the deceased being 53 years of age, the total amount payable was computed at Rs 11,12,000 on account of loss of dependency.
- The MACT found contributory negligence in this case.
- The surviving spouse of the deceased filed a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, initially seeking Rs 17,50,000.
- Due to contributory negligence assessed at 50%, a total amount of Rs 3,81,988 was awarded with interest at six per cent per annum.
- The High Court, in an appeal from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decision, increased the compensation from Rs 3,81,988 to Rs 6,81,000 and maintained interest at six per cent.
- The High Court affirmed MACT’s decision on contributory negligence but adjusted the compensation amount.
- A lump sum of Rs 1,25,000 was awarded by the High Court for the conventional head.
- Service was completed as per the notice issued by the Court on 22nd January 2019.
Arguments
- Learned counsel representing the appellant challenges the High Court’s decision on contributory negligence and compensation computation.
- The MACT’s order mentioned an independent witness who testified that the truck trailer was parked without reflectors on the road.
- Despite accepting the independent witness’s evidence, MACT inferred contributory negligence by the deceased without proper justification.
Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF
Analysis
- MACT did not provide reasons for affirming the view of the MACT without giving reasons
- Contradictions in testimony about the existence of reflectors at the accident spot
- MACT hinted at conjecture in its findings of contributory negligence
- Contradiction between evidence of driver NAW 1 and the MACT’s conclusion about lit indicators
- High Court did not discuss crucial points and simply confirmed contributory negligence findings
- MACT’s computation of compensation not in line with Supreme Court directive in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi
Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration
Decision
- Monthly salary of the deceased: Rs 12,636
- One-third deduction for personal expenses: Rs 4,212
- Net income of the deceased: Rs 8,424
- Insurer to deposit the compensation within 3 months
- Conventional heads compensation: Rs 75,000
- Future prospects addition of 15% due to deceased’s age of 53
- Total loss of dependency with a multiplier of 11: Rs 12,78,684
- Interest at 6% on the total amount from the date of the accident
- No order as to costs
- Yearly income of the deceased: Rs 1,16,244
- Total compensation payable for death: Rs 13,53,684
- Total income of the deceased per month: Rs 9,687
Case Title: JUMANI BEGUM Vs. RAM NARAYAN
Case Number: C.A. No.-009343-009343 / 2019
