Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 16.02.2023 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur (Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.796 of 2009. The appellant, Union of India, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was the opponent no.2 before the Tribunal. The original claimants, respondents no.1 to 3 herein, are the legal heirs of deceased Himanshu Shankarlal Parasiya. On 15.12.2008, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-01-DB-5185 over Girdharnagar over bridge when a Mazda vehicle bearing registration No.HR-68-3010, driven by opponent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner from the wrong side, dashed against the motorcycle. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on 17.12.2008 during treatment. The claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation. The appellant challenged the award on two grounds: first, that the Tribunal erred in not considering contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, and second, that the Tribunal applied a wrong multiplier. The High Court heard learned advocates for both sides. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate evidence on contributory negligence and granted higher compensation by applying wrong multiplier. The respondents' counsel supported the Tribunal's findings. The Court examined the record and found that the appellant did not lead any evidence to establish contributory negligence. The Court held that the burden to prove contributory negligence lies on the party alleging it, and in absence of evidence, the Tribunal's finding of sole negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle is justified. Regarding multiplier, the Court noted that the deceased was 22 years old and the Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 as per the Sarla Verma case, which is correct as multiplier is based on age of deceased. The Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence or application of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment and award was confirmed. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Burden of Proof - The appellant (CRPF) alleged contributory negligence on part of the deceased but failed to lead any evidence to establish the same - Held that the burden to prove contributory negligence lies on the party asserting it and in absence of evidence, the Tribunal's finding of sole negligence on driver of offending vehicle is justified (Paras 6-7). B) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Determination - The Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 based on age of deceased (22 years) as per Sarla Verma case - Held that multiplier is to be applied based on age of deceased, not claimant, and the Tribunal's application is correct (Para 8). C) Motor Accident Claims - Appeal - Scope of Interference - The High Court in appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will not interfere with findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence on negligence and quantum is not perverse and does not warrant interference (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering contributory negligence on part of the deceased and in applying wrong multiplier?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Impugned judgment and award dated 16.02.2023 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in MACP No.796 of 2009 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence must be pleaded and proved by the party alleging it
- Tribunal's appreciation of evidence on negligence cannot be interfered with unless perverse
- Multiplier to be applied based on age of deceased
- not claimant
