IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Motor accident claim – In a motor accident claim, there is no adversarial litigation and it is preponderance of probabilities which reign supreme in adjudication of tortious liability flowing from it.
(2) Mere fact that driver of scooter had only a Learners licence would not necessarily lead to conclusion of contributory negligence on part of scooter driver.
(3) Just compensation – Claim petition does not bind Court in granting just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. A young Block Development Officer¹[“B.D.O.”], riding pillion, met with an accident leading to amputation of both his legs. The injured/claimant filed an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The claimant sought for compensation of Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs only) under various heads. The Tribunal found that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand only) and directed the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Thousand only), holding that the driver of the scooter in which the appellant was travelling pillion should have been more cautious. The balance liability of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) was directed to be paid by the owner of the scooter who was also driving the sooter. The insurance company was directed to pay the entire amount and recover the liability of the owner of the scooter, from him.

3. An appeal was unsuccessfully filed from the order of the Tribunal which is impugned in the above appeal. On the question of contributory negligence, the High Court directed a sketch map to be produced and on a perusal of the same, it was found that the vehicles were travelling in opposite directions. Considering the discrepancies in the depositions of the claimant, PW 1 and the two eye- witnesses, PWs 2 and 3, it was held that the accident occurred after the long trailer had almost passed the scooter and there is no head-on-collision as deposed by PW 3. It was held that the driver of the scooter ought to have been more careful since he had a better vision than the trailer driver, especially since the collision occurred at the tail-end of the trailer. It was also found that the scooter driver had only a learners licence which does not entitle him to carry a pillion rider. It was found from the written statement of the scooter driver/owner that despite disclosing the fact of the scooter driver holding only a learners licence, the claimant had insisted to be carried pillion; which the scooter driver complied with only because the demand was made by a B.D.O. It was found that the B.D.O. had abused his authority and forced the commission of an illegal act by reason of which he has suffered amputation of the legs in an accident involving the scooter on which he had forcefully mounted. The appeal was, thus, dismissed. The concurrent judgments thus found that the negligence on the trailer driver was only partial and the scooter driver too contributed to the accident, by his negligence too.

4. We heard Mr. Kunal Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

5. The learned Counsel for the claimant/appellant argued that the compensation was very low considering the injury caused to the claimant who suffered amputation of both his legs. The injury necessitated the victim to always have the help of an attendant to ensure his mobility. The claimant had to purchase prosthetics which were very expensive and also replace it frequently since artificial limbs are susceptible to wear and tear. It is pointed out that the bills for the prosthetics, which had also to be changed periodically, are produced along with an Interlocutory Application in the appeal, along with bills of the attendant. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation even in addition to the claim made especially considering the huge cost incurred for ensuring a semblance of normalcy to his life by the purchase of prosthetics and its continued use. It is also argued that the negligence found on the scooter driver was not on reasonable grounds nor was it supported by any evidence. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal had not granted any interest for the amounts awarded.

6. For the insurer, it was submitted that the Tribunal, has clearly apportioned the liability to compensation based on th