Contributory negligence may not apply to minor victims lacking a driving license; primary liability rests with the reckless driver, justifying enhanced compensation.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

The petitioner/appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.09.2019 passed in MVC.No.1246/2018 by the III Additional District Judge and MACT, Mysuru.

2. The present petitioner/appellant has filed claim petition claiming compensation through her natural guardian-mother as she was minor at the time of filing the petition, claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- on all the relevant heads. According to claimant, on 04.05.2018, she was proceeding on her Honda Deo Scooter bearing Reg. No.KA-11-EH-7809 from Sadvidya Residential School, Vijayanagar, Mysuru, towards her house at Bogadi in Mysuru and when she was moving on the left side of the road at about 3.50 p.m., on Hunsuru-Mysuru double road, a Maruthi Wagon-R Car bearing Reg.No.KA-12-N-4435 being driven by its driver in a high speed and rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against her scooter and because of this impact, she sustained grievous injuries. Immediately thereafter, she was shifted to Aishwarya Hospital, Vijayanagar and she underwent treatment in the said Hospital as inpatient, so also underwent surgery. She was discharged on 13.05.2018.

-3. It is the further case of the petitioner/appellant that prior to the accident, she was hale and healthy and was pursuing her 1st year PUC. In addition to that, she was doing part time job and maintaining her family. Because of the accidental injuries sustained by her, she discontinued her studies and now she is unable to perform day to day activities as she used to perform prior to the accident. As the said accident is being caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruthi Wagon-R Car, all the respondents are liable to pay compensation to her.

4. Before the Tribunal, both respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared and filed their respective objections and denied the entire averments stated in the claim petition and there is denial with regard to the age, income and occupation of the petitioner/appellant and so also to the treatment taken by the petitioner/appellant in the Hospital.

-

5. It is contended that respondent No.1 is the driver of the vehicle and respondent No.2 is the owner of the said vehicle. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner/appellant is highly expensive.

6. Respondent No.3 by filing detailed objection denied the entire assertions made in the petition.

7. It is contended that the said accident has taken place due to the sole negligence on the part of the petitioner/appellant. It is further contended that even the driver of the Maruthi Wagon-R Car has also not produced his driving license. Therefore, respondent No.3-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

-

8. Based upon the rival pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed six issues.

9. Before the Tribunal, to substantiate and prove the case of the petitioner/appellant, since the petitioner/appellant was minor at the time of the accident and she got examined her mother-Smt.K.V.Latha as PW1 and further got examined two witnesses, namely, Dr.Mohan K as PW.2 and Sri.N.Tyagaraju as PW.3 and got marked 18 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 and closed the petitioner's/appellant's evidence. To rebut the evidence of the petition