The court ruled that establishing negligence based on intoxication requires strict compliance with legal standards, affecting liability and compensation adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

1. All the present appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, [Hereinafter referred as to ‘Act’] challenging the judgment and award dated 16.11.2017 passed in MVC No.5674/2013 by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate & MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-24), [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’] Hence, they are taken up together for consideration.

2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 16.11.2017 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,61,250/- together with interest @ 8%per annum.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

4. The relevant factual matrix in a nutshell leading to the present appeals is that, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on 29.08.2013, the claimant instituted the claim proceedings. It is the case of the claimant that when he was traveling along with his wife and son in a motorcycle, a lorry being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle in which the claimant was traveling causing the accident in question. The insurer and owner of the lorry were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the claim proceedings. The insurer filed statement of objections and contested the claim proceedings. The owner of the vehicle was placed ex- parte before the Tribunal. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctor examined as PW.2. The insurer examined the Investigating Officer as RW.1, a Doctor as RW.2 and its officer as RW.3. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 16.11.2017 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,61,250/- together with interest @ 8% per annum. With regard to the negligence, the Tribunal noticing that the driver of the lorry was intoxicated at the time of the accident held that the owner of the lorry was negligent to the extent of 25% and hence, fastened the liability on the insurer to pay 75% of the compensation awarded and the owner to pay 25%.

5. Being aggrieved, the claimant has filed MFA No.6618/2018 seeking for enhancement of compensation. The owner has filed MFA No.1251/2018 challenging the finding of the Tribunal fixing the liability on him to the extent of 25%. The insurer has filed MFA No.3238/2018 to set aside the finding fastening 75% of the compensation.

6. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri N. Kumar for the claimant, learned counsel Sri Vinod Prasad for owner and learned counsel Sri B. Pradeep for the insurer.Perused the records of the Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the insurer assailing the finding on negligence recorded by the Tribunal contends that, having regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the offending lorry was under the influence of alcohol, the entire liability to pay the compensation awarded ought to have been fastened on the owner of the vehicle. It is further contended that the compensation awarded under various heads is on the higher side as also the disability assessed by the Tribunal and the rate of interest awarded.

8. Learned counsel for the owner assailing the finding on negligence of 25% fastened on the owner contends that the only document which indicated that the driver of the lorry was under the influence of alcohol is the certificate issued by the Hospital (Ex.R3) which does not in any manner satisfy the criteria as stipulated under Section 185 (a) of the Act, in the absence of which, th