IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.
Afsar Pasha - Appellant
Versus
Rakshith N - Respondent
M.F.A. No. 4095 of 2019 (MV-SJ)
Decided On : 07-03-2022
Contributory Negligence - Motor Vehicle Accident - MVC No. 396/2018 - [Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988] - The court discussed the contributory negligence of the claimant and the award of compensation. The court found that the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation due to the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court set aside the 25% contributory negligence attributed to the claimant and enhanced the compensation from Rs.3,77,471.00 to Rs.5,78,031.00 with 6% interest from the date of the claim petition till its realization.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant was walking near Mobile Mane, Kengeri Upanagar, Bangalore when a motorcycle collided with him, causing grievous injuries. The claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for permanent disability and financial expenditure towards treatment and surgery.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's award of compensation was inadequate and enhanced the compensation from Rs.3,77,471.00 to Rs.5,78,031.00 with 6% interest. The court also set aside the 25% contributory negligence attributed to the claimant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal awarded reasonable and just compensation commensurate with the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence, including police records and medical reports, to determine the contributory negligence and the adequacy of the compensation. The court emphasized the need for preponderance of probabilities in motor vehicle accident cases and set aside the contributory negligence attributed to the claimant.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, modified the judgment and award of the Tribunal, enhanced the compensation, set aside the contributory negligence, and directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced compensation amount.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Shantharaj.K., learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel Mr. Ravish Benni, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dtd. 24/1/2019 in MVC No. 396/2018 before the MACT, Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal') seeking for an enhancement of the compensation.
3. Brief Facts:
On 28/10/2017 at about 08.00 pm when the claimant was walking near Mobile Mane, Kengeri Upanagar, Bangalore a motor cycle ridden by its rider bearing Registration No. KA-04 HW-2184, came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner from his opposite side and dashed against the claimant. As a result of which claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Shreya Hospital, Bangalore, where he has taken first-aid treatment and thereafter he was shifted to Rajarajeshwari Hospital and obtained treatment.
4. It is the case of the claimant that before the accident he was hale and healthy and doing driving work and earning Rs.40,000.00 per month. Pursuant to the accident he is disabled permanently and he is unable to do day to day activities as directed by his employer.
Therefore, he has lost earning capacity to drive a motor vehicle as that was his skill and technical knowledge. Due to the accident the claimant has suffered serious injuries and incurred huge financial expenditure towards treatment and surgery. Therefore, he has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
5. On service of notice, respondent No.1 - owner has not contested the case before the Tribunal and hence, he was placed exparte. The respondent No.2 - the Insurance company, appeared and filed its statement of objections. It denied the claim made by the claimant, inter alia, also took up a plea that the accident occurred due to the fault of the claimant and contended that the respondent No.1- rider of the motor cycle was not holding a valid driving license as on the date of accident, therefore, he violated the terms and conditions of the Policy. It is contended that the negligence was on the part of the claimant himself as he was not crossing the road at the place specified and reserved to cross the road. He was crossing the road by violating the traffic rules. Further, pleaded that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Hence, denied the liability on itself to pay the compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the pleading the Tribunal framed relevant issues.
7. In order to prove and establish his case, the claimant got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10. He also got examined a Dr B.N.Roashan Kumar, Orthopedic Surgeon as PW2 and marked three documents at Ex.P11 to P13. The respondents, on the other hand, got examined Mr. Rakshit, as RW1. However, did not produce any documents on their behalf.
8. After hearing both sides and providing sufficient opportunity to both parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant is liable towards contributory negligence of 25% and he would only be entitled for a compensation in a sum of Rs.2,83,180.00 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. The respondent No.2 - Insurer was directed to pay the compensation.
9. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and award of the Tribunal for inadequacy of compensation and fastening of contributory negligence of 25% on him, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement and to set aside the contributory negligence attributed on his part.
10. The point that would arise for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable and just compensation in commensurate to the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident occurred on 23
Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of contributory negligence in motor vehicle accident cases and the determination of reasonable and just compensation for the claiman....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and reasonable compensation for personal injury under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering factors such as contributory ne....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident case, considering the claimant's loss of future earning capacit....
A heavy vehicle driver has a heightened duty of care; sudden braking without signaling constitutes primary negligence. A rear-end collision does not automatically imply contributory negligence by the....
The appellant's contributory negligence and entitlement to compensation were the central legal points established in the judgment.
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.