Back
Karnataka High Court
Judges : S.A.Hakeem,B.Padmaraj
NALINA - Appellant
Versus
M.D.,Karnataka GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT - Respondent
M. F. A. 441 Of 1994
Decided On : 09/21/1995
Negligence - Car Accident - Exh. P-3 - actionable negligence - Tribunal's conclusion supported by evidence - no interference in appeal - Compensation - Claimant's age, employment, medical expenses, future earnings - Rs. 6,88,000 awarded - Interest not payable on future expenditures - M. F. A. No. 441 of 1994 dismissed, M. F. A. No. 910 of 1994 allowed in part - Parties to bear own costs - 50% of compensation to be deposited in claimant's name in F. D. account for 5 years
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, Nalina, was hit by a car and sustained serious injuries. The Tribunal found the accident to be a result of actionable negligence by the car driver. The claimant sought compensation for her injuries, including medical expenses and loss of future earnings. The appeals arose from the Tribunal's judgment and award.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal's conclusion on actionable negligence was supported by evidence and did not warrant interference in appeal. The claimant was awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,88,000, considering her age, employment, and medical expenses. Interest was not payable on future expenditures. M. F. A. No. 441 of 1994 was dismissed, and M. F. A. No. 910 of 1994 was allowed in part. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Issues: The main issues were the actionable negligence of the car driver and the quantum of compensation for the claimant's injuries, including medical expenses and loss of future earnings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of actionable negligence based on the evidence presented. The compensation awarded took into account the claimant's age, employment, and medical expenses. Interest was not payable on future expenditures. The court dismissed one appeal and allowed the other in part, directing the parties to bear their own costs.
Final Decision: M. F. A. No. 441 of 1994 was dismissed, and M. F. A. No. 910 of 1994 was allowed in part. The claimant was awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,88,000, and interest was not payable on future expenditures. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. 50% of the compensation was to be deposited in the claimant's name in an F. D. account for 5 years, with the claimant permitted to withdraw the interest accrued for living expenses.
( 1 ) BOTH these appeals arise out of the same judgment and award passed in M. V. C. No. 266 of 1991, on the file of M. A. C. T. No. IX, Bangalore, and, therefore, they are dealt with together.
( 2 ) ON 19. 9. 1990 at about 8. 15 p. m. , one Nalina was crossing the road near the Ulsoor Lake from south to north, when a. car bearing registration No. CAG 5287 came from east to west on that road and hit her. As a result of this accident, she sustained serious injuries. On the ground that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, the injured lady, nalina, claimed a compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- only, for the injuries sustained by her in the accident before the Claims Tribunal against the respondents, who were the owner and the insurer of the car.
( 3 ) THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the claim petition contested the claim by filing their separate written statements.
( 4 ) IN the course of the trial before the Tribunal, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exhs. P-1 to P-23 were got marked on the side of the claimant. On the side of the respondents, the driver of the car was examined as RW 1 and Exhs. R-1 to R-3 were marked.
( 5 ) ON an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was the result of the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car. On the question of compensation, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 8,00,800/-together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by this judgment and award of the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred M. F. A. No. 441 of 1994 for the enhancement of compensation while the respondents therein have preferred m. F. A. No. 910 of 1994 for setting aside the said judgment and award of the Tribunal.
( 7 ) WE have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel on both sides in both the appeals at some length and we have been taken through the relevant evidence on record as well as the reasonings of the Tribunal.
( 8 ) WE shall now proceed to consider the challenges made in both these appeals. Negligence
( 9 ) EXH. P-3 is the true copy of the sketch of the scene of accident prepared by the police during the course of investigation of the case in respect of this very accident and it is helpful to appreciate the issue of negligence. The correctness of the sketch, Exh. P-3, has not been disputed by either side. It would show that the injured lady was crossing the road from south to north. The car was proceeding on the road from east to west. The place of impact was 31 ft. from the southern margin of the road and 29 ft. from the northern margin of the road. The total width of the road at the accident spot was 60 ft. That means the injured lady had crossed more than half the width of the road, when she was hit by the car. The sketch, Exh. P-3, would clearly indicate that the car had deflected from its course towards its right beyond the central or median line and hit the lady on the other half of the road. The lady was crossing the road from south to north and the car had virtually chased her by deflecting towards right side, while proceeding from east to west and hit the lady. There was a space of about 31 ft. on the left side of the car. On either side of the road at the accident spot there were shops and houses and also lake junction. The road was a straight one and was sufficiently wide at the accident spot. The accident took place at about 8. 15 p. m. , in the night. The driver of the car has stated in his testimony before the court that he saw the lady crossing the road from a distance of about 20 feet and he says that he was driving the car at the speed of 30 to 35 km. per hour. He would admit that a car moving at a speed of 30 km. per hour could be stopped instantaneously. But on seeing the lady crossing the road, he says that he did not stop the car and he had only slowed down the speed of the car
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
