Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 10435
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
C M JOSHI, J
THE MANAGER, FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INS. CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
MAHESH, ANTHONI PETER through his wife DIVYAJYOTI – Respondent
MFA No.201231 of 2018 (MV-I)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI
For the Respondents: SRI. B.C. JAKA
In compensation claims, the absence of evidence proving contributory negligence can uphold the Tribunal's decision on liability and compensation calculate based on assessed disability.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident - The petitioner suffered multiple fractures causing permanent disability while crossing the road and sought compensation - The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,65,900/- which was partly upheld with adjustments. (Paras 5, 20)
(B) Negligence - Assessment of contributory negligence - The appellant contended the petitioner crossed the road without caution; however, the court found sufficient evidence showing the petitioner’s actions were not negligent. (Paras 10, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sustained severe injuries in a road accident while crossing a highway; the Tribunal initially awarded compensation based on various heads - medical expenses, loss of income, etc.
Findings of Court:
Compensation revised from Rs.2,16,000/- for loss of future income on disability to Rs.1,51,200/- with interest at 6% annually. The court assessed the functional disability at 10%.
Issues: Whether there was contributory negligence by the petitioner and if the awarded compensation was justified given the assessed disability and income.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of evidence proving contributory negligence helped uphold the Tribunal's decision on compensation; the functional disability was correctly assessed at 10%.
Result: The appeal is allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and initial compensation awarded. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding negligence and compensation. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court analysis of contributory negligence and compensatory calculations. (Para 10 , 13 , 17) |
| 4. final verdict and adjustments to compensation awarded. (Para 20) |
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and award in MVC No.49/2015 dated 5.3.2018 by learned II Additional District and Session Judge, Basavakalyan.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 09.12.2013 at about 9:30 PM, the petitioner and his cousin were returning to their room and while crossing the nice road, near Kodipalya from Magadi road side towards Madavara, motorcycle bearing No.KA-02 EX-8675 ridden by its rider Anthony Peter dashed to the petitioner, resulting in injuries to the petitioner as well as the rider. Immediately both were shifted to Sanjeevoni Hospital Dasarahalli in an Ambulance. It was contended that the petitioner had sustained comminuted fracture of middle 1/3rd of right tibia, comminuted fracture of right Patella, and the Lefort II fracture with right nasal bone fractures. The petitioner was searching for a job and he was in Engineering graduate searching for a job as a Software Engineer. It is contended that the petitioner would have received an income of Rs.25,000/- per month and now due to the injuries caused in the accident, his future is bleak and therefore, he may be awarded the adequate compensation.
4. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear and as such place ex-parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed a written statement. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner as he tried to cross the road without observing the oncoming traffic and that the rider of the motorcycle Anthony Peter was not having a valid driving licence. Inter-alia, the insurance company had also denied the insurance cover in the written statement, but later the insurance cover was admitted.
5. On the basis of the above contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Medical Officer who assessed the disability was examined as PW2, Ex.P1 to 13 were marked. The official of respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 Ex. 1 to 9 were marked on his behalf. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,65,900/- under the following heads;
| Medical & other expenses, conveyance, attendant charges and nourishment | Rs.3,56,900/- |
| Pain and suffering | Rs.35,000/- |
| Loss of amenities | Rs.8,000/- |
| Loss of income during treatment | Rs.50,000/- |
| Loss of income on account of permanent/partial disability | Rs.2,16,000/- |
| Total | Rs.6,65,900/- |
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the insurance company is in appeal before this Court.
7. The notice to the respondent No. 2 who is the wife of the deceased Anthony Peter was dispensed with since she was placed ex-parte before the Tribunal.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company would submit that the Tribunal failed to notice that the petitioner had also contributed for the negligence in commission of the offence. It is submitted that the petitioner was crossing the road without seeing the oncoming traffic and as such it being a National Highway, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to exercise caution while crossing the road. The second prong of the argument by learned counsel for the appellant is that the owner of the motorcycle, Anthony Peter was not having a valid driving licence. It is pointed out that the insurance company had issued notices to the Police Inspector, who investigated the case and also to the address of deceased Anthony Peter calling upon them to produce the driving licence, but they have not heeded to the same. It is also contended that an applica
