Contributory negligence cannot be based solely on police record and must be supported by meticulous consideration of pleadings and evidence. The notional income of the deceased should be assessed as per guidelines, and relevant legal principles should be applied to determine the compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, J.

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 16.06.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 22.11.2018 at about 6.15 p.m., deceased Ranganath was riding his moped bearing registration No.KAKA-41 EB-4607 on the extreme left side of Soluru-Kuduru road. When he reached near Gaddigemata Cross, Ombathanekunte village, at that time, a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-07 M-2024 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the moped of the deceased as well against a Maruti 800 car. The deceased thereupon fell down and eventually succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Indica car. It was further pleaded that the deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and was employed as a driver and used to earn Rs.20,000/- p.m. The claimants claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest.

4. Respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal and was proceeded exparte. Respondent No.2 filed written statement in which averments made in the claim petition were denied. It was further pleaded that the liability of the Insurance Company, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied. It was also pleaded that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The respondents neither examined any witness nor exhibited any documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that since from the police record it does not transpire that the deceased, at the time of accident, was wearing a helmet, therefore, the deceased as well as the driver of the Tata Indica car, have contributed to the causing of the accident to the extent of 10% and 90% respectively. It was further held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.14,24,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased had contributed to the extent of 10% in causing of the accident merely because he did not wear a helmet, is based on surmises and conjectures. It is further submitted that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority which is adopted in Lok Adalaths. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded on other heads is on the lower side. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in 'UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SMT.MARY AND OTHERS' ILR 2021 KAR 68.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the deceased was not wearing the helmet and therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that he has contributed 10% in causing the accident. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of Madras High Court in CMA NO.928/2018 (PORKODI AND ORS. Vs. SATISH AND ORS.) decided on 04.07.2018.

8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is