No regulations on liability of the accused if the driver of the offending tempo did not put on turn signals or parking lights: Bombay HC

The High Court said that“I reject the Court’s observations that there was 50% contributory negligence by the deceased in the said accident and I hold that the faulty tempo driver is solely responsible for the accident that occurred. The Court considered the salary income of the deceased at Rs.31,563/- when calculating the compensation. The Court withheld 20% income tax. No reason was given by the Tribunal for the said deduction. The annual salary income of the deceased was less than Rs.5,00,000/- so the income tax deduction should be 10%. Therefore, I am considering a 10% deduction for income tax.

In view of the above, the bench allowed the appeal and declared that the appellants are entitled to an increased amount of Rs.25,59,320/- with 6% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim request until it is carried out.

Case title: Mohini Mohanrao Salunke vs. Ramdas Hanumant Jadhav

Bench: Judge SG Dige

Case no: FIRST CALL NO. 569 FROM 2022

Appellant’s attorney: MRB Deshpande

Counsel for the Respondent: MHA Patankar

Get instant legal updates on mobile – Download the Law Trend app now

Recently, the Bombay HC ruled that, the responsibility cannot be held on the accused if the driver of the offending tempo did not put on the turn signals or the parking lights.

The bench of Judge SG Dige dealt with the appeal of the judgment and order rendered by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur.

In this case, the deceased Mohanrao Narharrao Salunke was heading on his motorbike towards his village. He gave momentum to the offensive tempo that stood on the road. Due to his accidental injuries, Mohanrao Salunke died during treatment. An offense has been recorded against the tempo driver.

The plaintiffs fled the claim motion to seek compensation in court. The Tribunal awarded compensation.

The question to be considered before the bench was as follows:

Was there contributory negligence of the deceased and right to an amount of compensation in the context of future prospects?

The High Court noted that no tail light or offending tempo indicator had been illuminated or no proper precaution had been taken by the driver of the offending tempo, to give a signal to other vehicles to show that the tempo accused was parked on the road.

The bench observed that none of these parking lights were put on the incriminated tempo, so that the responsibility for contributory accident cannot be attached to the deceased by retaining that he should have seen the tempo parked under the motorcycle headlight. Where there is a specific rule regarding the taking of precautions by stationary vehicle, if these precautions are not taken by the driver/owner of the stationary vehicle, liability cannot be transferred to the motorcyclist.

Join LAW TREND WhatsAPP group for legal news updates – Click to subscribe

The High Court said that“I reject the Court’s observations that there was 50% contributory negligence by the deceased in the said accident and I hold that the faulty tempo driver is solely responsible for the accident that occurred. The Court considered the salary income of the deceased at Rs.31,563/- when calculating the compensation. The Court withheld 20% income tax. No reason was given by the Tribunal for the said deduction. The annual salary income of the deceased was less than Rs.5,00,000/- so the income tax deduction should be 10%. Therefore, I am considering a 10% deduction for income tax.

In view of the above, the bench allowed the appeal and declared that the appellants are entitled to an increased amount of Rs.25,59,320/- with 6% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim request until it is carried out.

Case title: Mohini Mohanrao Salunke vs. Ramdas Hanumant Jadhav

Bench: Judge SG Dige

Case no: FIRST CALL NO. 569 FROM 2022

Appellant’s attorney: MRB Deshpande

Counsel for the Respondent: MHA Patankar

Get instant legal updates on mobile – Download the Law Trend app now