Bombay HC awards Rs 2.5 crore as compensation to family of accident victim who died

The court noted that the amount of nearly Rs 1.03 crore, with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, has already been paid to the family members or invested in deposits, and directed the tempo driver involved in the accident, and the vehicle insurance company, to pay additional compensation within a period of one month.

A division bench of Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Madhav J Jamdar was hearing an appeal by the family members,
the original claimants, challenging the October 2016 decision of the chairman of MACT, Thane, and seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded. Although the tribunal had determined the amount of compensation as Rs 2.58 crore, only Rs 1.03 crore was granted as the tribunal ascertained the contributory negligence on part of the accident victim and the tempo driver as 60% and 40%, respectively.

The accident took place on February 1, 2011 when the tempo driver was returning from Sanpada to Bhiwandi. According to the tempo driver, there were two speed breakers at the spot of incident and when his tempo was about to cross the second one, the victim’s car came at great speed and dashed the tempo from the rear. However, a witness claimed that the car driver was driving at a moderate speed and the tempo was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

According to the witness, the tempo driver suddenly stopped in the middle of the road and due to the sudden stoppage, the man’s car collided with the tempo.

Justice Jamdar, who authored the judgment for the bench, observed that the accident took place solely due to negligence of the tempo driver and not the victim, and held that the appellants were entitled to 100% of the compensation amount from the tempo owner and insurance company.

The appellants, through advocate Sandeep Mishra, had argued that there was no negligence on part of the victim and the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo driver. Mishra argued that the finding of the tribunal about contributory negligence was contrary to the evidence of independent witnesses, who were present at the spot of the accident, and therefore the appellants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs 2.58 crore.

However, advocate Rajesh Kanojia, appearing for respondent ICICI Lombard General Insurance, submitted that the said alleged eye witnesses were not mentioned as eyewitnesses in police records, and hence their evidence cannot be relied on.

After perusing submissions, the bench noted that despite the two witnesses providing their phone numbers to the police, they were not contacted for their statements. It added that the record indicated “very strange set of facts” where the FIR was not lodged by the driver or the owner of the offending vehicle, but by a constable, who claimed to be on patrolling duty when he reached the spot of the incident. It added that the police arrived only after one of the eye-witnesses called them.

The bench held, “We are satisfied that there is high probability that the accident had taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tempo,” adding that the possibility of false FIR to protect the driver and the owner of the tempo, who were local residents, cannot be ruled out, and allowed the appeal by family members of the deceased.