Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident — Scooter hit from behind by APSRTC bus
Where a scooter was hit from behind by an APSRTC bus, and the bus driver was charge-sheeted, negligence of the bus driver stands established on the basis of eye-witness testimony, FIR and charge-sheet.
(Paras 15–18, 21)
Negligence — Burden of proof — Defence of negligence of deceased
Mere plea that the deceased was negligent in riding the scooter, without supporting evidence, cannot dislodge positive evidence of rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus.
(Paras 8–9, 15–18, 21)
Evidence — Eye-witness — Independent third party
Testimony of an independent third-party eye-witness, corroborated by crime records, is sufficient to establish negligence in motor accident claims.
(Paras 10, 17–18)
Standard of proof — Motor accident claims
In motor accident claims, negligence is to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(Paras 19–21)
Income — Proof — Salary certificate and service record
Salary certificate and service register proved through an Accounts Officer constitute reliable evidence for determining income of the deceased.
(Paras 10, 25–26, 31–32)
Future prospects — Inclusion in income
While computing compensation, reasonable addition towards future prospects is permissible having regard to the nature of employment and likelihood of increase in salary.
(Paras 10, 32)
Multiplier — Age of deceased
For a deceased aged 43 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘14’ and not ‘15’.
(Para 33)
Medical expenditure — Proof
Medical bills supported by hospital records and testimony of treating doctors must be fully considered while determining compensation.
(Paras 24, 27–30)
Conventional heads — Consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate
Award under conventional heads must conform to settled law; inadequate amounts granted by the Tribunal require enhancement by the appellate court.
(Paras 34–36)
Just compensation — Appellate interference
The appellate court is duty-bound to modify the award where the Tribunal has applied an incorrect multiplier or awarded inadequate compensation under conventional heads.
(Paras 33–37)
Appeals — APSRTC and claimants
Where negligence and liability are established, the appeal filed by APSRTC is liable to be dismissed, while the claimants’ appeal for enhancement may be partly allowed.
(Paras 38–39)
ANALYSIS
Both appeals arose out of the award dated 12.01.2012 in M.O.P. No.839 of 2007. APSRTC questioned negligence, income, multiplier and medical expenditure, while the claimants sought enhancement of compensation (Paras 1–13).
On negligence, the Court affirmed the finding of the learned MACT by relying on the evidence of PW-6, an independent eye-witness, corroborated by FIR and charge-sheet. The bus driver’s admission of charge-sheet during cross-examination further supported the finding (Paras 15–18). The plea of negligence on the part of the deceased scooter rider was rejected for want of evidence (Paras 8–9, 21).
The Court reiterated that motor accident claims are governed by the principle of preponderance of probability, and strict criminal standards of proof do not apply (Paras 19–21).
On quantum, the Court examined salary evidence proved through the Accounts Officer and service records. While accepting the inclusion of future prospects, the Court found that the learned MACT applied an incorrect multiplier of ‘15’ instead of ‘14’ for a deceased aged 43 years (Paras 32–33).
The Court further found inadequacy under conventional heads and under-assessment of medical expenses, and accordingly reassessed the compensation (Paras 34–36).
Consequently, the total compensation was enhanced from Rs.22,15,741/- to Rs.22,49,530/-, while maintaining the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum (Paras 36–37). APSRTC’s appeal was dismissed, and the claimants’ appeal was partly allowed (Paras 38–39).
RATIO DECIDENDI
In motor accident claims, negligence of an APSRTC bus driver can be established on the basis of independent eye-witness testimony and crime records, applying the standard of preponderance of probability. Mere allegation of negligence of the deceased, without evidence, is insufficient. Salary certificates and service records constitute reliable proof of income. Application of the correct multiplier based on age and adequate compensation under conventional heads is mandatory, and the appellate court must modify the award to ensure just compensation where errors are found.
No comments:
Post a Comment