Back
Karnataka High Court
K.Jagannath Rai - Appellant
Versus
Gangarathna C.Bai - Respondent
Decided On : 06-06-03
M.F.A. : 3932 of 2000
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 173(1) -Contributory negligent -Tribunal -fixing 25% negligence on appellant/claimant -appellant crossing the intersection -number of vehicles moving in the same direction -appellant not able to move to the extreme left -appellant on the right side at the intersection -driver of the offending vehicle should have waited -damage on the left front portion of the offending vehicle -Motor Vehicle Inspector s report confirming -conclusion -the offending vehicle moving on the wrong side in a rash and negligent manner -negligence fastened to the appellant set aside.
[S. R. Nayak & K. Ramanna, JJ.] - It has come in the evidence that the road was a busy road and, therefore, it was not expected from the appellant to take his scooter to the extreme left obviously because there would have been number of vehicles proceeding on the same direction by his side. In such a situation the appellant-scooterist was neither required nor expected to slow down his vehicle while entering the intersection. In the instant case, it is admitted that the appellant was on the right side and, therefore, the driver of the lorry should have waited at the intersection.
Compensation for personnel injuries
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 173(1) -Grant of -matters to be taken into account -stated - interest -enhanced from 6% to 8% -total compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- awarded.
[S. R. Nayak & K. Ramanna, JJ.] - It is well settled position in law that in granting compensation for personal injury, the injured has to be compensated (i) for pain and suffering; (2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life if any; (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both; and (5) medical treatment and other special damages. In personal injury actions the two main elements are the personal loss and pecuniary loss.
Cases Referred : (1963) 2 All ER 625; (1965) 1 All ER 563; ILR 1987 Kar 1399; (1970) AC 1; (1874) 4 QBD 406; (1900) AC 113
Relied: (1869) 21 LT 326
Authority : McGregor on Damages (14th edn).
Consequences of deprivation
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS - Accident -personal injuries -consequences of deprivation -stated.
[S. R. Nayak & K. Ramanna, JJ.] -Deprivation of injuries may bring with it three consequences, namely, (i) loss of earning and earning capacity; (ii) expenses to pay others for what otherwise he would do for himself and (iii) loss or diminution in full pleasures of living. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering or personal deprivation, the Court has to make an attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Therefore, while considering deprivation, the Court should have regard to the gravity and degree of deprivation and the degree of awareness of the deprivation. In awarding damages in personal injury cases, the compensation awarded by the Court should be substantial and it should not be merely token damages. Lord Morris in his memorable speech in H. West and Sons (1963) 2 All ER 625 pointed out this aspect in the following words.
Cases Referred: AIR 1988 Kant 105; (1969) 1 All ER 555; (1965) 1 All ER 568; (1963) 2 All ER 625; 1900 AC 113; (1874) 4 QBD 406; (1869) 21 LT 326.
Awarding compensation in personal injury cases
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS - [S. R. Nayak & K. Ramanna, JJ.] -In Wards (1965) 1 All ER 568 speaking for the Court of Appeal in England, Lord Denning while dealing with the question of awarding compensation for personal injury laid down three basic principles: Firstly, assessability: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to Court, a thing very much to the public good.
Quantum of compensation
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS - Personal injury cases -quantum of compensation -considerations for.
[S. R. Nayak & K. Ramanna, JJ.] -In deciding the quantum of damages to be paid to a person for the personal injury suffered by him, the Court is bound to ascertain all considerations which will make good to the sufferer of the injuries, as far as money can do, the loss which he has suffered as a natural consequence of the wrong done to him. In Basavaraj Vs. Shekhar, ILR (1987) Kant 1399: (AIR 1988 Kant 105) a Division Bench of this Court held that "if the original position cannot be restored -as indeed in personal injury or fatal accident cases it cannot obviously be -the law must endeavour to give a fair equivalent in money, so far as money can be an equivalent and so make good the damage". In other words, the general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the Court should award to injured person such a sum of money as will put him in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the injuries. The principle is sometimes referred to as restitution in integrum; but it is manifest and universally realised that no award of money can possibly compensate a man and renew a shattered human frame.
Cases Referred: AIR 1988 Kant 105; (1969) 1 All ER 555; (1965) 1 All ER 568; (1963) 2 All ER 625; 1900 AC 113; (1874) 4 QBD 406; (1869) 21 LT 326.
Consideration to be taken into account
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS - [S. R. Nayak & K. Ramanna, JJ.] -It is well settled position in law that in granting compensation for personal injury, the injured has to be compensated; (1) for pain and suffering; (2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life if any; (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some case for both; and (5) medical treatment and other special damages. In personal injury actions the two main elements are the personal loss and pecuniary loss. Chief Justice Cockburn in Fair Vs. London and North Western Railway Co. (1869) 21 LT 326 distinguished the above two aspects thus: "In assessing the compensation the jury should take into account two things, first, the pecuniary loss (the plaintiff) sustains by accident; secondly, the injury he sustains in his person, or his physical capacity of enjoying life. When they come to the consideration of the pecuniary loss they have to take into account not only his present loss, but hi incapacity to earn a future improved income."
Cases Referred: AIR 1988 Kant 105; (1969) 1 All ER 555; (1965) 1 All ER 568; (1963) 2 All ER 625; 1900 AC 113; (1874) 4 QBD 406; (1869) 21 LT 326.
( 1 ) THE appellant is the claimant-petitioner in M. V. C. No. 744 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada at mangalore (for short, the Tribunal) filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (for short, the Act ). In the said m. V. C. , the appellant claimed total compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 from the respondent for personal injuries suffered by him in an accident occurred on 27. 2. 1996 involving the motor vehicle of the respondent. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 59,190 with court costs and interest on the said amount at 6 per cent per annum from 17. 6. 1996 up to the date of payment. The appellant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has preferred this appeal under section 173 (1) of the act.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as under: Appellant is a businessman carrying on business in the name and style, milton (India) Pharmaceuticals, in Balmata, mangalore. Appellant was a very wealthy person and was regularly playing tennis. On 27. 2. 1996, after he played tennis at kadarigudda, Mangalore, he was returning home on a Kinetic Honda scooter bearing No. KA 19-H 6124 from Nanthoor towards Kaikamba. When he reached SCS petrol bunk at Baikarnakatta, a lorry bearing No. KA 19-1230 owned by respondent No. 1, insured by the respondent No. 2 and driven by the respondent No. 3, came with high speed being driven in a most rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 3 and dashed against the scooter of the appellant. As a result of the accident, the appellant suffered serious head injury and lost consciousness. The appellant was admitted to SCS Hospital, Mangalore and regained consciousness after five days. The appellant was an inpatient from 27. 2. 1996 to 13. 3. 1996. As a result of the accident, the appellant became totally deaf on the right ear and lost his mental equilibrium and lost the hearing capacity in the ear to an extent of 20 per cent. His eyesight got diminished and his speech has become slurred. Appellant cannot tolerate the noise and is suffering from anxiety, depression and loss of memory. On account of the mental and physical disabilities suffered in the accident, the appellant cannot carry on his business as usual. The appellant can no longer drive two-wheeler or four-wheeler. Appellant is totally disabled from attending to his regular activities and enjoyment of life. After the accident the appellant quite often suffered from nervous breakdown and was brought to NIMHANS, bangalore on several occasions for advice and treatment.
( 3 ) THE appellant on the basis of the above allegation filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Act claiming total compensation of rs. 6,00,000.
( 4 ) THE respondent No. 1 though served with notice remained ex pane. The respondent No. 2 insurance company filed its written statement on 7. 10. 1997 denying the cause of the accident. The respondent no. 2 pleaded that the lorry bearing No. KA 19-1230, insured with it was proceeding slowly on its correct side on the date of accident and at that time, the scooter bearing No. KA 19-H 6124 of the appellant, was driven by the appellant at a high speed and on the wrong side and he lost control of the scooter and consequently dashed against the lorry, resulting in the accident. The respondent No. 2 insurance company, alternatively, pleaded that the appellant, at the time of accident, did not possess valid driving licence and that the appellant contributed negligence for the accident. Respondent No. 2 also pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant is highly excessive. It was also pleaded by respondent No. 2 that the petition filed by the appellant under section 166 of the Act is bad for non-joinder of the owner and the insurer of the scooter.
( 5 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:" (1) Whether the petitioner pr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
