No Evidence Of Contributory Negligence: Calcutta HC Directs Rs 40 Lakhs Additional Compensation For Family Of Man Who Fell From Bus & Died Due To Rash Driving
The Calcutta High Court has directed the insurance company to pay an additional compensation of Rs 40,08,687 at 6% per annum, to the relatives of a man who was killed after being thrown from the front gate of a bus he had boarded, due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.In allowing the appeal against the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal ("MACT") which had awarded a...
The Calcutta High Court has directed the insurance company to pay an additional compensation of Rs 40,08,687 at 6% per annum, to the relatives of a man who was killed after being thrown from the front gate of a bus he had boarded, due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.
In allowing the appeal against the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal ("MACT") which had awarded a sum of approx 3.68 lakhs of compensation, due to the alleged contributory negligence of the deceased, a single bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta held:
The learned tribunal has not considered the evidences on record but has proceeded hypothetically and assessed the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The investigation of the police is ended in charge sheet accusing the driver of the offending vehicle to be 6 responsible for the accident. Charge-sheet is prima-facie evidence which can be disbelieved. Only on the version of the FIR, the observation of the learned tribunal, appears to me not justified and beyond the evidence on record.
The claimants had moved the MACT under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, due to the death of their relative as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.
Upon hearing the parties, the tribunal awarded approx Rs 3.68 lakhs as compensation, against which the present appeal was preferred.
Counsel for the appellants submitted that the award passed by the tribunal was illegal in the eye of the law and that it had misconstrued and misappreciated the facts and circumstances of this case and came to an erroneous finding.
It was argued that the victim fell down from the front gate of the bus proceeding in a rash and negligent manner on Guskara Road; the victim sustained severe injuries on his person which resulted in his death.
It was further submitted that there were seven witnesses to prove the claim case but the tribunal had not considered the entire evidence on record.
It was argued that the tribunal had erroneously held that the deceased was responsible for the accident and there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well as the driver of the bus.
As a result, it was argued that the tribunal only awarded Rs 2 lakhs for medical expenses and did not consider the ITR of the deceased by the Tax Department, showing his income.
Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the observation of the tribunal was on the basis of the facts and circumstances of this case and based on the materials on record.
It was argued that the tribunal had considered the evidence in respect of contributory negligence on behalf of the deceased and passed the award the impugned award correctly.
Upon hearing the parties, the Court concluded that the tribunal had erred in concluding that the deceased exhibited contributory negligence, and reassessed the compensation based on the ITR returns filed by the deceased till hs death.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 37
Case: Soma Ghosh @ Soma Barman @ Soma (Barman) Ghosh & Ors. versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No: FMA 454 of 2013