Contributory negligence and compensation assessment in motor accident claims were affirmed, with the court highlighting the importance of valid driving documentation in determining liability.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. PANDIT, J.

Both, the insurer and the claimants are in appeal challenging the judgment and award, dated 16.05.2023, passed in M.V.C. No.1672/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raibag (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The appeal in M.F.A. No.104100/2023 is filed by the insurer questioning the quantum of compensation and the contributory negligence, whereas M.F.A. No.100886/2024 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also challenging the finding of the Tribunal attributing negligence to the extent of 30% on the deceased.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.

4. Heard Sri. Rajesh B.Rajanal, learned counsel appearing for the insurer and Sri. Ashok A. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the claimants. Perused the entire appeal papers.

5. The claimants – parents of one Premakumar Golasangi filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’, for short) claiming compensation for the accidental death of said Premakumar Golasangi in a road traffic accident that took place on 01.10.2020 involving motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 23/EQ-0680 and a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-23/A- 7402. The claimants stated that the deceased was aged about 23 years as on the date of the accident; he was working as a businessman and an agriculturist, and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month, and due to death of their son, they were unable to maintain themselves.

6. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2-insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objection statement contending that the deceased was not possessing a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident and also that the motorcycle which the deceased was riding was not insured. It also stated that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motor cycle. Thus, the insurer prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. Before the Tribunal, claimant No.1 got examined himself as P.W.1, and produced and marked eight documents as Exs.P.1 to P.8. The respondents did not examine any witness nor produced any documentary evidence. The Tribunal, on examination of the material on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.21,69,000/- on the following heads:

The Tribunal while saddling the liability to pay the compensation, based on the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased had also contributed to the occurrence of the accident and thus, fixed the contributory negligence to an extent of 70% on the driver of the tipper lorry and 30% on the deceased who was riding the motorcycle.

8. The insurer is in appeal contending that the contributory negligence ought to have been fixed equally i.e., 50% each on the driver of the tipper lorry and the deceased, whereas the claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation as well as questioning 30% of contributory negligence saddled on the deceased.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer would submit that the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle, came from behind and dashed the tipper lorry which was stationed on the left side of the road. Thus, he would submit that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased – rider of the motor cycle. Learned counsel would submit that, moreover, the deceased was not having a valid driving licence to ride the motor cycle and that the motorcycle which the deceased was riding was not insured under an insurance policy. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal assessing the material on recor