The court emphasized proper determination of contributory negligence and fair compensation, ultimately enhancing the awarded amount to reflect actual losses experienced by the claimants.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.1950/2019 dated 31.08.2021 by the VII Addl. SCJ and ACMM, Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru, whereby the Tribunal had awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.10,21,200/-. The claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation as well questioning the contributory negligence that is fixed on the deceased at 20%. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident.

2. It is the case of the claimants that on 12.02.2019 at about 8.00 a.m. the deceased was crossing the road on B.M. road, Kaniminike, at that time driver of the Etios car, drove it in rash and negligent manner, came from Bangalore towards Mysore side and dashed against the deceased. As a result, he fell down and suffered injuries. At the same time driver of one Mini bus came from Bangalore side drove it in rash and negligent manner, without keeping proper distance and the said bus wheel ran over the body of the deceased. As a result, he suffered severe head injury and immediately he was shifted to the hospital wherein he was declared as brought dead. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation as per the table given below:

3. The Tribunal had held that there is negligence on the part of the driver of Etios car and also minibus as well the Tribunal had also held that when there was no pedestrian crossing as he was crossing the road the contributory negligence is fixed at 20% on the deceased and accordingly, awarded the compensation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/

claimants submits that fixing the contributory negligence at 20% on the deceased is without any basis. It is submitted that when the clear negligence of both the drivers is established, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the contributory negligence on the deceased. It is further submitted that the compensation that is awarded is not just and reasonable and the same needs to be enhanced.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Companies submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered and fixed the contributory negligence on the deceased and there are no grounds to interfere. Even on the quantum also, it is a just and reasonable compensation and no interference is called for.

6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. This Court had perused the award impugned and the manner in which the accident has happened. It is a clear case where there is negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. However, there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, but in the considered opinion of the Tribunal, apportioning the same at 20% is on the higher side. In that view of the matter, the contributory negligence is apportioned at 45% on both the vehicles and 10% on the deceased.

7. Then coming to the compensation, the accident had taken place in the year 2019, the income has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- per month, 10% of future prospects would come to an amount of Rs.1,400/- i.e., Rs.15,400/- as there are two claimants 1/3^rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses i.e., Rs.5,133/-. Then his contribution to the family is Rs.10,267/- (10,267X12X11)= Rs.13,55,244/- towards loss of dependency. Towards loss of consortium this Court is granting an amount of (44,000X2)=Rs.88,000/-. Towards funeral exp