Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Accident involving passenger alighting from bus
Where a passenger fell and sustained fatal injuries while alighting from an APSRTC bus due to the driver moving the bus without observing the conductor’s signal, negligence of the bus driver stands established.
(Paras 4, 7, 13–14, 17)
Negligence — Passenger getting down from bus
Plea that the deceased got down from the bus without knowledge of the driver or conductor cannot be accepted in the absence of rebuttal evidence, when eye-witness testimony and crime record establish rash and negligent movement of the bus.
(Paras 6, 13–14, 17)
Evidence — Eye-witness — FIR and charge sheet
Evidence of an eye-witness who is also the informant in the FIR, corroborated by charge-sheet and post-mortem report, is sufficient to establish negligence in motor accident claims.
(Paras 7, 13–14)
Standard of proof — Motor accident claims
In motor accident claims, negligence is to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(Paras 15–17)
Income — Assessment — Self-employed deceased
Where precise proof of income is unavailable, the Tribunal is justified in adopting a reasonable notional income based on nature of avocation, subject to addition of future prospects as per settled law.
(Paras 20–21)
Future prospects — Self-employed
For a self-employed deceased aged between 30–40 years, reasonable addition towards future prospects is permissible while computing compensation.
(Paras 18–21)
Multiplier — Age of deceased
For a deceased aged 34 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘16’, as per the principles laid down in Sarla Verma.
(Paras 21–22)
Conventional heads — Parental consortium
Minor children of the deceased are entitled to compensation towards parental consortium, even where such amount was not awarded by the Tribunal.
(Paras 22–23)
Interest — Rate — Long lapse of time
Having regard to long lapse of time, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal may be suitably reduced by the appellate court.
(Para 23)
Just compensation — Enhancement in appeal
The appellate court is empowered and duty-bound to enhance compensation to ensure “just compensation”, even where the claim amount is lower, and even in the absence of cross-appeal by claimants.
(Paras 24–27)
Appeal — APSRTC
Where negligence and liability of APSRTC are established, the appeal challenging liability fails; however, modification of quantum may be ordered to render just compensation.
(Paras 17, 24, 28)
ANALYSIS
The appeal arose from the award dated 25.04.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.978 of 2009, wherein compensation of Rs.3,99,000/- was awarded for the death of a woman passenger who fell while alighting from an APSRTC bus (Paras 1, 4, 7–8).
On negligence, the High Court affirmed the finding of the learned MACT by relying upon the clear testimony of P.W.2, the eye-witness and informant, corroborated by FIR, charge-sheet and post-mortem report. APSRTC adduced no rebuttal evidence, and the bus driver remained ex parte (Paras 13–14, 17). The plea that the deceased was negligent in getting down from the bus was rejected (Paras 6, 14).
The Court reiterated that motor accident claims are governed by the standard of preponderance of probability, as laid down in Bimla Devi, and strict criminal standards do not apply (Paras 15–17).
On quantum, the Court noted that the deceased was aged 34 years and self-employed. While the Tribunal adopted income at Rs.100/- per day, it failed to add future prospects. The Court therefore enhanced the income by adding future prospects, applied the correct multiplier of ‘16’, and recalculated loss of dependency (Paras 20–22).
The Court further enhanced compensation under conventional heads by granting parental consortium to both minor children and revised funeral expenses and loss of estate (Paras 22–23). Considering the long lapse of time, the rate of interest was reduced from 9% to 6% per annum (Para 23).
Consequently, the total compensation was enhanced from Rs.3,99,000/- to Rs.6,22,000/-, while affirming APSRTC’s liability (Paras 24, 28).
RATIO DECIDENDI
Where a passenger dies due to rash and negligent movement of a bus while alighting, negligence of the bus driver can be established through eye-witness testimony corroborated by FIR and charge-sheet, applying the standard of preponderance of probability. For a self-employed deceased aged between 30–40 years, reasonable addition towards future prospects and application of the correct multiplier are mandatory. Minor children are entitled to parental consortium. The appellate court may enhance compensation and adjust interest to ensure just compensation, even beyond the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
No comments:
Post a Comment