IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HANCHATE SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
Mallesha – Appellant
Versus
Annappa – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2754/2012 (Mv)
Decided on : 01-04-2022
MOTOR VEHICLES - Compensation Claim - Sec. 166, Sec. 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act - [KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. BELLAPPA, ILR 2017 KAR 1292] - The court discussed the applicability of contributory negligence and the assessment of compensation under various heads. The court relied on the spot sketch and legal principles to determine the negligence of the bus driver and the deceased rider, ultimately setting aside the finding of contributory negligence and enhancing the compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was hit by a bus while pushing his bike, leading to his death. The claimants filed a petition seeking compensation under Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act. The Tribunal awarded compensation, but the appellants challenged the judgment, seeking enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bus driver was entirely negligent, setting aside the finding of contributory negligence. The court also recalculated the compensation under various heads, ultimately allowing the appeal in part and enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Issues: Contributory negligence, assessment of compensation under various heads
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the spot sketch and legal principles to determine the negligence of the bus driver and the deceased rider, ultimately setting aside the finding of contributory negligence and enhancing the compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the appellants were entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.7,21,100.00, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to what was awarded by the Tribunal.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed under Sec. -173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the appellants-claimants, challenging the judgment and award dtd. 21/12/2011, passed in MVC No.716/2010, on the file of Fast Track And Additional MACT (11) at Bhadravathi, seeking enhancement.
Brief facts:
2. The appellants - claimants are the father and mother of deceased Raju @ Shivaraju. That on 19/2/2010 at about 4.45 p.m., the deceased Rau was pushing his bike by walking on left side of Anavatti to Shivamogga road near Veeranna Benavalli Cross. At that time, first respondent came driving the bus bearing registration No.KA.15.A.1371, from Shivamogga side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against deceased Raju. Due to the impact, Raju sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of his body and he died on the way to the hospital.
3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants under Sec. -166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation. The deceased was a Contract Labour in H.T.S. Department, V.I.S.P. Bhadravathi and earning Rs.7,000.00 per month. The appellants, who are the parents were depending upon the earning of the deceased. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,20,500.00.00.00, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the bus driver was negligent of 70% and the deceased was negligent of 30% by applying contributory negligence. The spot sketch produced at Exhibit-R3, shows that the accident has occurred on the right side of the road from Shivamogga to Sagar. The Motor cycle was coming from Sagar to Shivamogga. Therefore, the bus driver had come to the extreme right side of the road and hit motor cycle, which can be clearly seen in the spot sketch. Further, the Police have filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending bus, that fortified the appellants-claimants' case. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that applying contributory negligence is not correct.
5. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the various heads is not sufficient. Therefore, prays to enhance the compensation on various heads.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - insurance company Sri.K.Lakshmi Narasappa vehemently contended that the deceased, who was the rider of the motor cycle, was riding along with two pillion riders on the motor cycle and he was unable to control the motor cycle. Therefore, the accident has taken place. In this regard, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also at 30%. Therefore, prays to confirm the judgment and award of the Tribunal. Further, submitted that the accident has taken place on middle of the Road as can be seen in the spot sketch at Exhibit-R3. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly observed and held that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Further, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are sufficient. Hence, there is no need to enhance the compensation amount. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.
7. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are as follows:
8. Heard the learned counsels and perused the material on record.
9. The Tribunal has held that the bus driver was 70% negligent and the rider of the motor cycle was 30% negligent and therefore the theory of contributory negligence is applicable. Upon perusing Exhibit-R3, a copy of the spot sketch produced, it is seen that the bus was moving from Shivammogga to Sagara and motor cycle was proceeding from Sagara to Shivammoga, the spot sketch
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Bellappa
National Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Pranay Sethi
Smt.Sarla Verma and Others. vs. Delhi Transport Corpn and Another
The court emphasized the determination of negligence and the assessment of compensation under various heads, setting aside the finding of contributory negligence and enhancing the compensation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the rejection of contributory negligence and the recalculated notional income to determine the enhanced compensation.
The appellate court must ensure just compensation is awarded, overriding findings of contributory negligence unless clearly evidenced otherwise, affirming courts' obligation to award fair compensatio....
The court emphasized that contributory negligence should reflect greater shared responsibility when both parties are at fault, leading to a modified compensation award that accurately accounts for in....
Death in motor accident – Contributory Negligence – On an allegation simpliciter, contributory negligence cannot be presumed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of contributory negligence and compensation calculation guidelines under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Contributory negligence cannot be presumed solely based on the violation of law; a causal connection to the accident must be established.
Point of law: Section 110A and Section 110B of Motor Act, 1988 are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively affect the rights of the parties. The right of action created by Fatal Accident....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.