Contributory negligence requires evidence to support it, and the assessment of disability and loss of future earning capacity influences the quantum of compensation.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/claimant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/owner in all the appeals.

2. These appeals are filed challenging the common judgment and award dated 27.03.2015 passed in MVC Nos. 1632/2013, 1634/2013, 1638/2013, 1639/2013, 1640/2013, 1641/2013 and 1642/2013, respectively, on the file of Senior Civil Judge & Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti at Saundatti ('Tribunal' for short).

3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that all the claimants were proceeding in ape rickshaw bearing registration No. KA-24/5670 towards Munavalli, at that time, a tempo trax bearing registration No. KA-25/A-8255 came from Munavalli side in a zig-zag manner and dashed against the said ape rickshaw , as a result, the claimants have sustained the injuries and they were shifted to the hospital, took treatment and spent the amount towards medical expenses and also suffered the permanent disability. Hence, the claimants are before the Tribunal.

4. To substantiate their claim, the claimants are examined themselves as P.Ws. 1 to 7 and also examined the Doctor as P.W. 8 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P51. On the other hand, the owner has been examined as R.W. 1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R3.

5. The Tribunal after considering the material available on record granted the following compensation:-

Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal, the present appeals are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation and also contended that no contributory negligence is taken when the two vehicles are involved in the accident.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company in her arguments vehemently contends that when two vehicles are involved in the accident, the Tribunal ought to have taken the contributory negligence. There were 15 passengers travelling in the Goods Auto at the relevant point of time, though the carrying capacity is only one. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the cases are on higher side and exorbitant. Even on the head of loss of future earning capacity due to disability, the Tribunal added 5 to 10% of the income to the future income while calculating the loss of future income. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal having taken note of the nature of injuries as well as the disability assessed by the Doctor, awarded the just and reasonable compensation in all the cases and it does not require any interference of this Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not taking the contributory negligence as contended by the Insurance Company?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding an exorbitant compensation in all the claim petitions?

(iii) What order?

Point No. (i):

9. The first and foremost contention of the Insurance Company is that the two vehicles are involved in the accident. When two vehicles are involved in the accident, there were more persons travelling in the vehicle, the Tribunal ought to have taken the contributory negligence and the same has not been considered. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

10. Per contra, learned counsel ap