The court emphasized the correct assessment of contributory negligence and disability percentage in determining compensation for motor vehicle accident victims.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dtd. 5/4/2013, passed in M.V.C.No.1675/2011, on the file of the IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short).

3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that he met with an accident on 24/2/2011, as a result, he has suffered compound fracture of left tibia lower end type III and also lacerated wound 3 x 1 cm. over anterior medial aspect above ankle of left leg and lacerated wound over anterior aspect above ankle of right leg 4 x 2 cm. In support of his claim, he examined the doctor as P.W.2, who assessed the disability of 41.9% to left lower limb and 20.79% to the whole body. The Tribunal accepted 10% disability and awarded the compensation.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the disability of 10% and also committed an error in taking the income of Rs.4,500.00 per month and it was an accident of the year 2011 and compensation awarded under all other heads are very meager. The claimant was an inpatient for a period of 14 days and no compensation is awarded under the head loss of amenities. The learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in apportioning the contributory negligence of 20% on the claimant and the very approach of the Tribunal is erroneous and hence it requires interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the doctor who has been examined as P.W.2 assessed the disability of 20.79% to the whole body and the same is erroneous and the Tribunal has rightly taken the disability of 10% and hence it does not require interference of this Court. The learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded under other heads are just and reasonable. The learned counsel would submit that he was standing on the road at a distance of 3 feet from the edge of the road, hence, the Tribunal has rightly taken the contributory negligence and hence it does not require interference of this Court.

6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the contributory negligence of 20% on the part of the appellant and whether it requires interference of this Court?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation? (iii) What order? Point No.(i):

7. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the Tribunal while answering issue No.1 discussed in paragraph No.10 of the judgment that the claimant has admitted the document at Ex.P.6 and during the course of crossexamination of P.W.1 also he admits the same and he stated that he was waiting for the bus and hence, taken 20% contributory negligence. But having taken note of Ex.P.6, it is very clear that the bus came on the extreme left side of the road since there is no bus stop or any other stop near the place of accident. When such being the case, when the claimant was waiting on the edge of the road at a distance of 3 feet, the same cannot be a contributory negligence and if he tried to cross the road, then there is a force in the contention of the argument of the respondent's counsel and hence it is appropriate to consider that the Tribunal has lost its sight on the said fact and only merely accepting the document at Ex.P.6-sketch which was drawn by the Investigating Officer, comes to the erroneous conclusion and the very approach of the Tribunal is erroneous and apportioning of 20% of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is erroneous. Thus, it requires interference of this Court. Hence, I an