New Delhi: The Supreme Court has delivered a significant judgment, holding that merely attempting to overtake a vehicle cannot be considered an act of rashness or negligence, especially when there is no contrary evidence on record.
Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, while disposing of appeals arising from a motor accident claim case, made important observations on contributory negligence and compensation calculation.
The court noted that the claimant-appellant was attempting to overtake a tractor when another tractor, coming from the wrong side at high speed, collided with them, resulting in the death of the appellant's wife and injuries to the appellant.
The court observed, "In the attending facts and circumstances, merely because a person was attempting to overtake a vehicle, it cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence with nothing to the contrary suggested from the record."
Addressing the issue of contributory negligence, the court stated, "These two factors taken together lead us to the conclusion that the finding of contributory negligence against appellant No.1 was erroneous and unjustified. Consequently, the compensation awarded on this count has to be revised."
The court emphasized the need to consider future prospects in calculating compensation, as per the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi case. It noted, "In the present case, the deceased was between the ages of 40 and 50, and accordingly, a 25% addition is to be made to the established income."
Also Read: Hathras incident: SC refuses to consider PIL on inquiry, adequate compensation
The court also corrected the application of the multiplier, stating that the multiplier of 15 should be used as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act in force at the time of filing the Special Leave Petition.
Based on these considerations, the court substantially enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,01,250/- to Rs. 11,25,000/-.
In conclusion, the court allowed the appeals and modified the impugned Award dated 8th January 1997, while maintaining other directions of the Tribunal except for reducing the interest rate from 12% to 8%.
