Bombay High Court awards ₹2.5 crore compensation to family of motor accident victim

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday awarded ₹2.5 crore as compensation to the family of a motor vehicle accident victim who passed away in 2016 [Namrata Anil Yadav & Ors. vs Bhupendra Manohar Bhoir & Ors.].Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar observed that the accident took place solely due to the negligence of the other driver and not the victim. He therefore opined that the appellants were entitled to 100% of the compensation amount."As we have held that the accident has occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the Tempo, the Appellants are entitled for total compensation of ₹2,58,45,336," he explained.The appellants had earlier been awarded 40% of the amount by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) after it returned a finding of contributory negligence on part of the deceased. The MACT then apportioned the contributory negligence between the deceased and the driver of the other vehicle as 60 percent and 40 percent respectively and awarded the appellants ₹1,03,38,144..The judgment in which the award was accorded was challenged by the appellants before the High Court. According to the appellants, there was no negligence on part of the deceased and the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the other vehicle..The sole submission of the appellants was that the finding of the tribunal regarding contributory negligence was contrary to the evidence given by two independent witnesses who were present at the spot of the incident.He submitted that the evidence on record clearly showed that the accident had taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending tempo and therefore the appellants are entitled to 100 percent compensation..Counsel for the respondents argued that since the witnesses were not mentioned in the police record, their evidence cannot be relied upon..The Court noted that even though both the eyewitnesses had provided their phone numbers to the police upon their arrival at the spot of the accident, they were not contacted for their statements to be recorded..Moreover, it found that the FIR was registered by a constable and not the driver or the owner of the offending vehicle. The constable claimed to be on patrolling duty when he reached the spot of the accident. The Court, however, pointed out that according to the evidence on record, the police arrived after one of the eyewitnesses made a phone call to them.It was, therefore, unable to rule out the possibility of a false FIR being lodged in order to protect the driver and the owner, who were locals. Thus, it ruled that the accident had taken place solely due to the negligence of the driver..[Read order]