Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim filed by the appellants (claimants) being the widow and another legal heir of deceased Maheshbhai Parmar. On 19.10.2013, the deceased was riding a motorcycle with the claimants as pillion riders. At about 2:15 PM, near the sim of village Delol, a tipper truck was parked on the road in a manner endangering human life. The motorcycle dashed into the stationary truck from behind, resulting in fatal injuries to Maheshbhai. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.7,95,000/-. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Halol, by judgment and award dated 01.04.2021, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the deceased himself was negligent and the claimants failed to prove their case. The Tribunal also noted triple riding on the motorcycle but did not establish how triple riding contributed to the accident. Aggrieved, the claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Gujarat High Court. The High Court heard Mr. Pushpadatta Vyas for the appellants and Ms. Karuna Rahevar for respondent No.3 (insurance company). The court observed that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence, particularly the testimony of claimant No.1 (pillion rider and eyewitness) who denied negligence of the deceased. The court noted that it was undisputed that the motorcycle dashed into a stationary dumper from behind. Relying on precedents Bimla Devi v. HRTC (AIR 2009 SC 2819) and Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand (2011 (11) SCC 635), the High Court held that when a stationary vehicle is parked on a public road, the Tribunal ought to consider at least contributory negligence and apportion negligence accordingly. The court found that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim outright without assessing contributory negligence. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and award, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law, directing the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh after giving opportunity to both parties.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Stationary Vehicle - Tribunal dismissed claim petition holding deceased negligent without considering contributory negligence of the driver of the stationary dumper - High Court held that when a stationary vehicle is parked on a public road, the Tribunal ought to consider at least contributory negligence and apportion negligence accordingly - Case remanded for fresh consideration (Paras 3-4). B) Motor Accident Claims - Appreciation of Evidence - Pillion Rider Testimony - Claimant No.1, an eyewitness and pillion rider, denied negligence of the deceased motorcyclist - Tribunal failed to appreciate evidence and relied on triple riding without proof of causation - High Court set aside dismissal and remanded for fresh adjudication (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of negligence of the deceased without considering contributory negligence and without appreciating evidence regarding the stationary vehicle.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 01.04.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Halol in Claim Petition No.2325 of 2017 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall decide the claim petition afresh after giving opportunity to both parties. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence
- Apportionment of negligence
- Liability of stationary vehicle owner
- Motor accident claim
- Dismissal without evidence appreciation
