Safiya Malik

The Gauhati High Court in its judgement on an appeal concerning a motor accident compensation case, addressing the liability of a stationary truck and the contributory negligence of the deceased motorcyclist. The judgment upholds the award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), modifying the apportionment of negligence to reflect a 75:25 ratio between the truck owner and the deceased.

The case arose from a road accident on September 19, 2007, involving a motorcycle and a parked truck on National Highway 52 near Madhabpur. The deceased, Mantosh Choudhuri, was traveling to his father-in-law’s house at Bihpuria on his motorcycle bearing registration No. AR-01-B/2464. As he approached Madhabpur, a woman with a minor child unexpectedly crossed the road from behind a stationary truck, registered as AS-01-B/0804. To avoid hitting them, the deceased swerved but collided with the parked truck, which resulted in his immediate death.

The claimants, comprising the deceased’s wife, minor daughter, and mother, alleged that the parked truck was the primary cause of the accident due to its negligent positioning on the highway. They contended that the truck lacked any reflectors, warning indicators, or precautionary signage to alert oncoming vehicles to its stationary presence. The claimants sought compensation of Rs. 16,50,000 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, asserting that the truck’s improper parking directly led to the accident.

The truck owner contested these claims, maintaining that the vehicle had been parked due to a burst tire and that necessary precautions had been taken. The truck had remained in that position for three days due to the unavailability of a replacement tire during Biswakarma Puja. The owner also argued that the accident was caused entirely by the deceased’s negligence, who had failed to notice the stationary truck and adjust his speed accordingly.

The insurance company, National Insurance Co. Ltd., acting as the appellant in the case, argued that the Tribunal had incorrectly attributed liability to the insured vehicle. The insurer maintained that the deceased was entirely responsible for the accident due to his alleged rash driving. It further contended that the Tribunal’s award was excessive and based on an inflated calculation of the deceased’s salary, which was stated to be Rs. 8,056 per month as a school teacher.

The Tribunal framed three primary issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle?

2. Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extent and from whom?

3. What other reliefs were the claimants entitled to under the law and equity?

Upon examining the evidence, the Tribunal ruled that the accident was caused due to negligence on the part of the truck’s owner. However, it also recognized contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Based on these findings, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 14,05,000 in compensation, including Rs. 40,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering, and Rs. 5,000 for funeral expenses, with an interest rate of 5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

The High Court examined the appeal and reviewed all the arguments put forth by the insurance company, the truck owner, and the claimants. The Court found inconsistencies in the statements provided by the claimant, particularly between the First Information Report (FIR) and her deposition before the Tribunal. While the FIR suggested that the deceased struck the stationary truck while trying to avoid a pedestrian, her deposition stated that the truck hit the motorcycle. Due to this discrepancy, the Court found that the claimant’s version of events could not be relied upon without scrutiny.

However, the Court also considered the testimonies of eyewitnesses, CW-2 and CW-3, who confirmed that the truck had been parked on the highway for three days without any safety warnings. The Court observed: "The truck was parked casually as if it were parked in a designated parking area rather than on a National Highway." The lack of reflectors, stones, or even basic markers to indicate its presence was deemed a serious failure on the part of the truck owner.

The Court further noted that the accident occurred at around 6:30 PM when visibility was limited. The Court stated: "Had the driver activated parking lights or displayed any warning signs, the deceased could have been more cautious, potentially preventing the accident." This observation led to the conclusion that while the deceased bore some responsibility for not adjusting his speed and awareness, the truck’s negligent parking was the primary cause of the accident.

Regarding the issue of compensation, the Court reviewed the claim that the Tribunal overestimated the deceased’s salary. It observed that the deceased, being a school teacher, would have earned periodic salary increments and benefited from government pay commission revisions over time. The Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 8,056 as his monthly salary was considered reasonable. The Court also upheld the award for loss of consortium, noting: "Considering that the claimant lost her husband early in their married life, the loss of consortium amount of Rs. 40,000 is justified."

After examining the circumstances, the High Court concluded that liability should be apportioned in the ratio of 75:25. The truck owner was found to be primarily responsible for the accident, while the deceased was held accountable for 25% due to contributory negligence. As a result, the claimants were entitled to 75% of the total compensation amount.

The Court directed the appellant insurance company to deposit the remaining compensation amount with the Registry of the Court within 60 days. This amount would be disbursed to the claimants in accordance with the Tribunal’s order, ensuring that the compensation award was implemented without further delay.

Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Diptee Choudhury and Others
Case Number: MACApp./83/2011
Bench: Justice Budi Habung

[Read/Download order]