IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Chandru – Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Multi Specialty Lab Services Pvt. Ltd, Trichy & Another – Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1348 of 2018
Decided On : 04-03-2019
Contributory Negligence - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 10
Fact of the Case:
The appellant claimed compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal found contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and awarded compensation. The appellant challenged the findings and quantum of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellant's contributory negligence was fixed at 20% and modified the compensation to Rs.2,04,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.
Issues: Contributory negligence, Validity of driving license, Quantum of compensation
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, stating that a person must possess a driving license for the specific class of vehicle being driven. The Court also emphasized the need for concrete evidence to establish contributory negligence, especially regarding alcohol consumption.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was partly allowed, and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.2,04,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.
1. Aggrieved by the findings of contributory negligence and also challenging the quantum, the appellant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The appellant has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in the accident alleging that on 21.09.2014 at about 5.15 P.M., he was driving the two wheeler bearing registration No.PY-01 AJ 3098 at the extreme left side of Villupuram-Puducherry road and while he was nearing Savitha Theatre, Villupuram, a tempo traveller bearing registration No.TN-45 AA 9924 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the appellant. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Government Medical College & Hospital, Mundiyampakkam, where from he was taken to JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry and admitted as inpatient and discharged on 22.9.2014. Thereafter, he was admitted in KOTI Ortho (Private) Hospital, Villupuram as inpatient from 22.9.2014 to 04.10.2014, where he underwent surgery on 23.09.2014. Regarding the accident, a criminal case in Crime No.293 of 2014 was registered by Villupuram Town Police Station. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 30 years and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing driver work.
3. The second respondent insurance company filed the counter stating that the accident occurred only due to the sole negligence of the appellant, who was riding the two wheeler on a public road without valid driving licence. Therefore, it is false to allege that the driver of the tempo traveller was alone responsible for the accident. Denying the avocation and monthly income of the appellant, the second respondent stated that the appellant has to prove that he was suffering from permanent disability and that the total claim made by the appellant is highly exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P21. On the side of the second respondent, Dr.Muthaiyan was examined as R.W.1 and the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1.
5. Finding that since the appellant was not holding valid driving licence to drive the two wheeler and at the time of accident, he was under the influence of alcohol, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the first respondent as well as the appellant and fixed the contributory negligence equally. Taking the disability at 23.3% and adopting Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,19,850/-. Since the appellant contributed the accident, the Tribunal directed the second respondent insurance company to pay Rs.1,09,925/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. I heard Mr.Mahendran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
7. Assailing the findings of the Tribunal that the appellant also contributed the accident, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal wrongly held that there is negligence on the part of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was in drunken state and caused the accident. He would submit that the Tribunal has fixed the contributory negligence without any documentary evidence or medical evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that the second respondent has not examined the driver of the first respondent, nor any eye-witness for proving contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and that the Tribunal arbitrarily fixed 50% contributory negligence, which is against law.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent contended
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.