Mere Plea Of Head-On Collision Does Not Establish Contributory Negligence In Motor Accident Claim Cases: Telangana High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Telangana Single Bench of Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, while deciding an insurer’s appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award arising from a fatal road accident involving a motorcycle and a goods vehicle, held that a bare assertion of a head-on collision, without supporting material, does not by itself prove contributory negligence. The Court declined to interfere with the tribunal’s conclusion on negligence, the fastening of liability on the insurer, and the compensation quantified for the deceased rider’s dependants. However, it partly allowed the appeal to the limited extent of modifying the award by reducing the interest rate from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation, confirming the rest of the award.
The appeal arose from a claim petition filed by the wife, minor children and parents of a deceased motorcyclist seeking compensation for his death in a road accident. On 23.03.2015, the deceased was riding his motorcycle when a DCM vehicle allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against it. He sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed while undergoing treatment. A criminal case was registered under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the DCM vehicle. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- contending that the deceased, aged about 40 years, was engaged in agriculture and hotel business.
The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,40,405/- with interest at 9% per annum, fastening joint and several liability on the driver, owner and insurer. The insurance company preferred the appeal disputing negligence, alleging contributory negligence, contending absence of a valid driving licence, violation of policy conditions, improper addition of future prospects, incorrect deduction towards personal expenses and excessive rate of interest.
The Court recorded, “The Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the DCM driver.” It further observed, “The charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, and no contra evidence was produced by the Insurance Company to dislodge the said finding.” The Court stated, “The mere plea of head-on collision, without supporting evidence, does not automatically establish contributory negligence.” It concluded, “Hence, the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal is based on preponderance of probabilities and warrants no interference.”
On the issue of driving licence and breach of policy, the Court observed, “Though the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the driver was not holding a valid licence, no cogent evidence was adduced to establish a fundamental breach of policy conditions.” It recorded, “Mere marking of the driving licence extract without examining the concerned licensing authority is insufficient.” The Court added, “In any event, the policy was admittedly in force as on the date of accident.” It therefore stated, “Hence, the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the insurer.”
With regard to quantum, the Court observed, “The Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, added future prospects as per settled law, applied the appropriate multiplier of 15, and deducted 1/5th towards personal expenses considering six dependents.”
On interest, the Court recorded, “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mannat Johal and others and in several subsequent decisions held that the reasonable rate of interest to be awarded in motor accident claim cases shall be 7.5% per annum.” It stated, “Therefore, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is on the higher side and requires modification.” It further observed, “Except for the modification in the rate of interest, the award passed by the Tribunal in all other respects is upheld as just and reasonable.”
The Court directed, “In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed in all other respects.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant–Insurance Company
For the Respondents: Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 6–Claimants
Case Title: M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mamilla Jangamma and eight others
Case Number: M.A.C.M.A.No.539 of 2019
Bench: Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
