Mere attempt to overtake vehicle not Negligence; Supreme Court enhances MACT compensation from Rs.1,01,250 to Rs.11,25,000

Supreme Court: In the instant appeal regarding enhancement of compensation in a motor accident claim, the Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol*, JJ., while taking note of the facts of the case and finding of contributory negligence by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, opined that merely because a person was attempting to overtake a vehicle, cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence with nothing to the contrary suggested from the record.

The Court thus enhanced the original compensation awarded to the appellant, holding that the appellant would now be entitled to compensation of Rs.11,25,000 instead of Rs.1,01,250 as originally awarded by the Tribunal.

Background and Legal Trajectory: The appellant along with his wife aged about 45 years were travelling by motorcycle and as they were crossing village Mehrauli, on their way to Noida to visit a friend, they were faced with two rashly and speedily driven tractors resulting into an accident, with the appellants sustaining several injuries including a broken jaw and fracture in his leg. Unfortunately, the appellant’s wife died on the spot due to the impact of the accident.

The appellant and his deceased wife were engaged in business and were jointly earning from their business concern. It was urged that due to the sudden death of the wife, the profits and income from entire business was lost. Hence, the appellant filed a claim for Rs.12,00,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Vis-a-vis contributory negligence, the Tribunal held the appellant and the respondent to be responsible equally. The Tribunal thus rejected the appellant’s claim for Rs.12,00,000; however, compensation of Rs 1,01,250/- with costs was awarded to the appellant.

Seeking enhancement of compensation, the appellant approached the High Court. Vide the impugned order dated 26-10-2017 the High Court partly allowed the appeal, observing that there was an apparent error in the Tribunal applying multiplier 9 to calculate the compensation and directed the Tribunal to calculate the enhanced compensation carrying the rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal.

Subsequently, in 2018, a recall application was preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated 26-10-2017. However, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellants approached the Supreme Court against both these orders.

Court’s Assessment: Perusing the trajectory of the case, the Court found that the primary ground on which reduced compensation was awarded to the appellants, was the finding of contributory negligence by the Tribunal. Examining the Tribunals’ order, the Court noted that in answering the issue regarding the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation, it was observed that the responsibility for the accident could be apportioned to both the appellant and the respondent at 50% each.

The Court further considered several precedents on contributory negligence, wherein the concept, types and onus were discussed.

Taking note of the facts, the Court pointed out on that unfortunate day the driver of a tractor had maintained slow speed, prompting the appellant to overtake; however, driver of another tractor was rash and negligent in his act, because not only did he overspeed, but also came from the wrong side, resulting in the collusion. The Court thus opined that merely because the appellant was attempting to overtake, he cannot be termed as rash and negligent. Furthermore, the Court observed that the appellant lost a member of the family.

Regarding appellant’s attempt to overtake a vehicle, the Court stated that the appellant was doing an act which is an everyday occurrence on the road, but resultantly suffered extensive injuries himself. The Court further pointed out that it was proved that the offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently.

Considering the two afore-said factors together, the Court thus concluded that finding contributory negligence against the appellant was erroneous and unjustified. Therefore, the compensation awarded on this count must be revised.

The Court found force in the appellant’s contention that multiplier of 15 will be applicable while calculating the compensation as per 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as on 22-5-2018. The 2nd Schedule was omitted on 25-02-2022, however, SLP in the instant matter was filed on 10-10-2018, on which date the Schedule was in force, hence the multiplier of 15 as per the Schedule will be applicable. The Court further took note of the grant of future prospects and joint income that the appellant and his deceased wife used to make in their business concern.

With the afore-stated assessment, the Court thus deemed it fit to enhance the compensation to Rs.11,25,000 instead of Rs.1,01,250 as awarded by the Tribunal. The Court also clarified that other directions of the Tribunal shall remain undisturbed except that the rate of interest would be 8% instead of 12%.

Hence allowing the appeal, the Court thus modified the Tribunal’s order.