Back
2003 Supreme(Kar) 942
Karnataka High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Hanamanthappa Adivappa Shakapur - Respondent
Decided On : 11-10-03
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of composite negligence and the application of the Unit Method for calculating compensation towards loss of dependency.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Motor Vehicle Accident - Section 173(1) - MVC No. 678/2000 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the liability of rash and negligent driving under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the principles of composite negligence. The court also evaluated the method for calculating compensation towards loss of dependency and the application of the Multiplier Method.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a motor vehicle accident, and the claimants sought compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) found the driver of the jeep solely responsible for the accident and awarded compensation. The appellant, the insurer of the jeep, appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both drivers contributed to the negligence, and there was composite negligence on the part of both drivers in the ratio of 50:50. The court modified the liability to pay the compensation jointly and severally, in the ratio of 50:50 between the owner and insurer of the truck and the owner and insurer of the jeep.
Issues: The issues involved were the determination of liability for the accident and the justification of the awarded compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that both drivers were equally at fault and contributed to the negligence. The court also upheld the MACT's application of the Unit Method for calculating compensation towards loss of dependency.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the judgment and award passed by the MACT were modified to reflect the joint and several liability of the owners and insurers of the vehicles in the ratio of 50:50.
( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short Act) is preferred by the Insurance Company, calling in question the judgment and award dated 18. 5. 2002 passed in MVC No. 678/2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VII, Bijapur, (for short MACT)
( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows:- respondents 1 to 5 herein are the dependants and legal heirs of the deceased Adiveppa @ Appasahab Shakapur who was working as a JCB Operator, and died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on Nidagundhi Bijapur road near B. Bagewadi Cross at about 3. 30 a. m. on 27. 6. 2000. The deceased Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Shakapur was traveling in Mahindra jeep bearing certificate of registration No. KA-28/m-2202 owned by the 4th respondent and insured by the appellant herein. The truck bearing certificate of registration No. KA-30/2978 owned by the 6th respondent and insured by the 7th respondent herein was coming in the opposite direction. At B. Bagewadi Cross, the truck, it is alleged, came in a zigzig manner, as a result, both the vehicles i. e, the jeep and the truck collided head on and in the said accident, the deceased Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Shakapur traveling in the jeep died instantaneously. The claimants having instituted claim proceedings in MVC No. 678/2000 sought for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest. The claimants claimed that they are the father, mother, widow and two minor children of the deceased Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Shakpur, totally dependant on the earnings of the deceased.
( 3 ) THE respondents, on notice, filed their written statement, denying all the material averments of the claim petition, but however admitted the accident. The insurers of both the motor vehicles had denied their liability while admitting having insured the motor vehicles. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT, framed the following issues:-1. Whether the petitioner prove that Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Hanumanthappa Shakapur, died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27. 6. 2000 at 3. 30a. m. on Nidagundhi Bijapur road, near B. Bagewadi Cross was due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing Reg. No. KA-28/m-2202 and the truck bearing Registration No. KA-30/2978 by their respective drivers? If so, what is the percentage of negligence of drivers of each vehicle?2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from which of the respondents?3. What Order?
( 4 ) THE claimants examined three witnesses of which P. W. 1 was the first claimant, P. W. 2, an eye-witness and P. W. 3, the employer of the deceased Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Shakapur and got marked documents at Exhibits P. 1 to P. 7. The third respondent i. e. , the insurer of the truck bearing No. KA-30/2978, examined one witness, its Officer, and got exhibited the documents at Exhibits R. 2 to R. 5. The appellant, apart form exhibiting the insurance policy at Exhibit R. 1, did not adduce any oral evidence.
( 5 ) THE MACT, having evaluated the oral and documentary evidence on record, fastened the liability of rash and negligent driving on the driver of the jeep bearing registration No. KA-28/m-2202 and having caused the accident, resulting in the death of Adiveppa @ Appasaheb Shakapur. As regards the question of quantum of compensation, the MACT awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,94,200/- together with interest at 6% p. a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent No. 5 in the claim petition i. e. , the appellant herein, who is the insurer of Mahindra jeep bearing registration No. KA-28/m-2202 has preferred this appeal, questioning the findings on the issue of rash and negligent driving as well as the compensation awarded by the MACT in the impugned judgment and award.
( 6 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
( 7 ) THE allegations leveled against the drivers of the motor vehicles viz. , the jeep and the truc
