Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1974
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J
SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE MANJUNATHA – Appellant
Versus
SRI BHARATH NANDAN S/O N.RAMAKRISHNA – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5787 OF 2015 (MV-D)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. SUGUNA R.REDDY
For the Respondents: SRI RAVISH BENNI
Contributory negligence cannot be based on the non-wearing of a helmet without substantive evidence linking it to the accident's cause, and compensation must reflect accurate income assessments.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, Sections 173(1) - Appeal against Tribunal's judgment attributing contributory negligence and seeking compensation enhancement - Tribunal attributed 30% negligence to deceased for not wearing a helmet - Court found this to be speculative and not established by evidence. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18)
(B) Compensation - Assessment of income and future prospects - Tribunal's assessment of Rs.6,000/- pm. was incorrect; correct notional income is Rs.7,000/- pm. with 40% increase for future prospects due to age of the deceased - Total compensation awarded was Rs.17,05,400/- along with interest. (Paras 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellants challenging the find of 30% contributory negligence in the death of the deceased due to a vehicular accident. Accident involved a motorcycle and a car, with claims made against the driver of the car. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The deceased's attire (helmet) does not directly relate to his negligence; primary responsibility lies with the vehicle driver. Compensation reviewed and enhanced based on notional income and statutory guidelines. (Paras 10, 12)
Issues: Main issues involved assessing contributory negligence and determining fair compensation based on the accident's circumstances. (Paras 4, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: Court found that attributing contributory negligence to the deceased for not wearing a helmet was erroneous; primary fault lies with the driver of the other vehicle. Importance placed on evidence and not speculation regarding helmet usage in establishing negligence. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: Appeal allowed-in-part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of accident leading to death. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 , 9) |
| 2. legal arguments from both sides regarding negligence. (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's determination on contributory negligence. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. assessment of compensation based on income and projections. (Para 12 , 14 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 06.05.2015 in MVC.No.2640/2012 passed by VIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and MACT (SCCH-5), Bengaluru, questioning the attribution of 30% of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and also for seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 04.03.2012 when the deceased-Manjunatha was moving from Beechaganahalli village on his TVS Max No.KA-40-R-2797 another vehicle bearing No.KA-01-MD-6330 driven in a rash and negligent manner had struck the two wheeler from rear side, resulting in death of the deceased- Manjunatha.
3. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the records.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the finding of the Tribunal is that the deceased has also attributed 30% of contributory negligence because of the fact that the deceased has not worn headgear, hence, contributory negligence cannot be sustained, since that finding is only speculative in nature. Therefore, submitted that the rash and negligent aspect is to be ascertained as to who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Therefore, submitted that the said finding is not correct. Further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lesser side. Therefore, prays for enhancement of compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court as under:
i. Suma G., and others Vs. Mohan and Another reported in 2022(1) AKR 746;
ii. Puttasiddamma alias Puttasiddi and another Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2022(1) AKR 749;
iii. Meera Devi and another Vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Others reported in (2014) 4 SCC 511 ;
iv. Assistant Electrical Engineer Vs. Satyendra Rai and Another reported in (2014) 4 SCC 513;
v. Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh & Others reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3981; and
vi. Indian Mercantile I.B Asson (Tenants) Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3983.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company submitted that non-wearing of helmet by the deceased itself is the contributory aspect and that is correctly held by the Tribunal. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. Further submitted that the quantum of compensation is correctly assessed, which needs no interference.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Sri Naresh Babu N., and Others ,
8. By placing reliance on the above said judgments, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company argued that this Court on the reason that the deceased had not worn helmet and also the deceased was not holding driving licence to drive the vehicle, therefore, attributing entire negligence on the part of the deceased, thus allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Therefore, submitted that, the present case also, it is squarely covered by the above stated judgments.
Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. The factum of accident and death of the deceased is not disputed. The Tribunal had observed that the deceased had not worn helmet and if the deceased had worn helmet, then the deceased might not have died. Therefore, opined that non-wearing of helmet is also contributory factor, hence, fastened 30% of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Further opined that the deceased was not possessing driving licence. Therefore, this is also one of the contributory factor. Thus, it is held that the
