Deceased's Car Hitting Offending Vehicle From Behind Not Contributory Negligence In Absence Of Evidence: AP High Court

Enhancing a motor accident award, the Andhra Pradesh High Court said that deceased's car dashing into the offending vehicle from behind is not enough for Insurance Company to claim contributory negligence in absence of rebuttal evidence particularly of the offending vehicle's driver. 

Dismissing an appeal filed by the insurer, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan enhanced the compensation awarded to the family of a deceased marine engineer from Rs. 41.10 lakh to Rs. 62.77 lakh after finding that the Tribunal had wrongly deducted one-third towards personal expenses, failed to award future prospects, and applied an incorrect multiplier.

Before the High Court, the insurer had argued that since the deceased's vehicle had hit the tanker from behind, he had contributed to the accident. It contended that the Tribunal's finding absolving the deceased of negligence was contrary to the evidence on record. The insurer did not challenge the quantum of compensation on any other ground.

On this the Court observed:

"The Tribunal also has found that in absence of any rebuttal evidence, in particular the driver of gas tanker, who is best witness to speak of the manner in which accident has occurred, discredited the plea of contributory negligence as set up by the insurer. The witnesses of Insurer, i.e., R.W.1 to R.W.3, who are Motor Vehicle Inspector and Administrative Officer, since were found to be not trustworthy witnesses to speak of the manner in which accident has occurred, the Tribunal has come to conclusion that there was absolutely no rebuttal evidence on aforesaid issue.

The finding of Tribunal with regard to the aspect of negligence of the driver of tanker in causing the accident, in our opinion, is appropriate. In the absence of any other rebuttal evidence from the insurer, there is no reason for us to disbelieve the version of claimants/witnesses as rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. This issue, therefore, is answered against the insurer."

The case arose out of a road accident that occurred in 2002. The deceased, a 33-year-old marine engineer employed with a Hong Kong-based shipping company, was earning about USD 2,428 (approximately Rs. 1,09,260 per month). He was driving a Maruti Van with his friends to distribute his brother's wedding invitations when it collided with a gas tanker that had allegedly stopped abruptly on the road without following traffic rules. The deceased and another occupant died on the spot, while another passenger sustained injuries. 

Following investigation, the police registered a case and filed a charge sheet against the tanker driver. The deceased's wife, minor son and parents sought compensation of Rs. 1,01,88,400 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the tanker driver, rejected the insurer's plea of contributory negligence, and awarded compensation of Rs. 41.10 lakh with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved, the insurer challenged the award before the High Court.

The principal issues before the High Court were whether the Tribunal had erred in holding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and whether the compensation awarded was just and fair.

The claimants, while supporting the Tribunal's finding on negligence, sought enhancement of compensation. They argued that, since the deceased had four dependants, the Tribunal ought to have deducted one-fourth instead of one-thirdtowards his personal expenses, added future prospects, and assessed his income in light of the salary evidence on record. They further contended that the High Court could award just and fair compensation even though they had not filed an appeal or cross-objections.

Rejecting the insurer's contentions, the High Court held that the Tribunal had rightly relied on the eyewitnesses' testimony, the FIR and the charge sheet, while the insurer had failed to produce any convincing rebuttal evidence, particularly from the tanker driver, who was the best witness to explain how the accident occurred.

On the quantum of compensation, the Court upheld the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 30,000, observing that he was employed overseas on a contractual basis for eight months a year and, in the absence of certainty regarding continued employment, the income had been reasonably assessed.

However, it found that the Tribunal had erred in deducting one-third instead of one-fourth towards personal expenses, omitting future prospects and applying a multiplier of 17 instead of 16. The Court accordingly recalculated the compensation at Rs. 62.77 lakh.

The Court issued the following directions:

1. Dismissed the insurer's appeal and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 62.77 lakh with 7.5% interest from the date of the claim petition till realization.
2. Apportioned the compensation by awarding Rs. 30 lakh to the wife, Rs. 25 lakh to the son and Rs. 3,88,950 each to the deceased's parents.
3. Directed the insurer to deposit the compensation before the Tribunal within one month, after adjusting any amount already paid.
4. Permitted the claimants to withdraw their respective shares upon deposit, failing which the amount would be recoverable in accordance with law.

Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Dasari Anuradha and Others

Case No.: MACMA No. 1913 of 2010

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Ganesh Paladugu

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Siva Rama Krishna Kolluru

Click Here To Read/Download Order