Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 651
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Jyoti Mulimani, J.
Mohammad Shafi - Appellant
Versus
Laxmi N Kamath - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 9186 of 2012
Decided On : 28-07-2020
Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate, Ashok V, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the re-determination of compensation based on the claimant's actual monthly income, percentage of disability, and quantum of compensation under various heads.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Section 166 - The judgment discusses the claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The court re-determines the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering factors such as monthly income, percentage of disability, and quantum of compensation under various heads.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.86,600, which the claimant appealed seeking enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The court re-determined the compensation, considering the claimant's monthly income, percentage of disability, and quantum of compensation under various heads. The appeal was allowed in part, and the judgment and award of the Tribunal were modified to enhance the compensation to Rs.1,70,400 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Issues: The main issues were the assessment of compensation, monthly income, and percentage of disability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court re-determined the compensation based on the claimant's actual monthly income, percentage of disability, and quantum of compensation under various heads.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the judgment and award of the Tribunal were modified to enhance the compensation to Rs.1,70,400 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Mulimani, J. - Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.
2. This is claimant's appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment and award dated 01.06.2012 passed in MVC No.423/2011 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, D.K.Mangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for the sake of brevity).
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Tribunal.
The claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 17.01.2011.
4. It is the case of the claimant that he was working as a Driver in AL-Fareed General Land Transport at Dubai and earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. On the fateful day i.e., on 17.01.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., he was proceeding in Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No.KA-19V-107 as a pillion rider near Thokkottu Bus Stand in Mangalore Taluk. At that time, suddenly the driver of the tempo bearing registration No.KA-21-8645 drove the said Tempo in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the Honda Activa Scooter. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Sahara Hospital, Thokkottu and after taking first aid, he was shifted to Thejaswini Hospital, Mangalore and he took treatment as inpatient in the said hospital from 17.01.2011 to 07.02.2011 and has undergone operation and was discharged.
The claimant has stated that due to the accident and having sustained grievous injuries, he has suffered permanent disability. Hence, he is not in a position to attend to his routine work.
He further urged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tempo and in that connection, the Ullal Police have registered case in Crime No.20/2011 against the driver of the tempo. The tempo is duly insured with the second respondent. Contending that he is entitled to damages on various heads to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) the claimant brought action by filing the claim petition before the Tribunal.
5. In response to the notices issued by the Tribunal, first respondent remained absent and she was placed ex parte. The second respondent - Insurance Company filed its written statement inter alia contending that the claim petition is false, baseless and not maintainable and also denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant and also the manner in which the accident occurred.
The Insurance Company further stated that the driver of the tempo was driving slowly and the rider of the Honda Active was guilty of violation of law and is responsible for the alleged accident. Therefore, the owner and the insured of the said vehicle are solely liable to pay the compensation. Further, contention was raised that the statutory requirement of Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has not been complied with.
The claimant being a tortfeasor and guilty of contributory negligence is not entitled to claim any compensation from the respondents. It is further contended that the driver of the tempo was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Thus, prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration:
"i. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident that occurred on 17-01-2011 at about 10-00 AM., near Thokkottu, new bus stand, Mangalore, was due to rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-21-8645 by its driver?
ii. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the petitioner is guilty of contributory negligence?
iii. Whether the petitioner further proves that he had sustained injuries as a result of accid
