The court determined that compensation must reflect actual earnings and future loss in personal injury claims, emphasizing equitable liability among involved insurers for compensation based on contributory negligence.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

These appeals are by the claimants in different claim petitions, and they are filed because of the injuries suffered and the demise of Sri. D. L. Srinath in a road accident on 06.02.2008. The claimants seek enhancement in compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'] in the respective claim petitions. The details of the claim petitions, the corresponding appeals and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are:

2. Sri D.L. Srinath’s wife and his minor children have filed the claim petition in MVC No. 7456/2008, and Sri D L Srinath’s daughter, Ms. Neha Reddy [who was aged 12 years as of the date of the accident] is reduced to a vegetative state, and the claim petition on her behalf is in MVC No.7457/2008. Sri. D. L. Srinath's wife and other members of the family, who have suffered certain minor injuries in the accident as inmates of the car, have filed the other claim petitions in MVC Nos.7458-7463/2008.

3. Sri D. L. Srinath was driving the car bearing No. KA-07-M-1972 with all the inmates on the Kolar-Mulbagal stretch of the National Highway No.4 when he hit the lorry bearing No. KA-05-D-3249 that was backing unto the National Highway from a side road. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence [including the spot sketch-Exhibit-P4], has opined that the evidence shows that both Sri D L Srinath and the driver of the lorry have contributed equally to the accident. The claimants are aggrieved by the Tribunal's finding on this contributory negligence.

4. This Court must opine that the question on contributory negligence will be germane only in so far as the claim petition in MVC No.7456/2008, which is filed by Sri D L Srinath’s wife and children. The other claim petitions are filed by those who are injured and were inmates of the car at the time of the accident. The Claimants in MVC Nos.7457- 7463/2008 [including the claim by Ms. Neha], because they were inmates of the car, will be entitled to receive compensation from the Insurer of either of the two vehicles in view of the proposition of composite negligence.

5. However, the two Insurers - the Insurer of the Car [M/s. The New India Assurance Company Limited] and the Insurer of the lorry [M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited] have deposited the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in equal proportion. However, the question of contributory negligence will have to be examined because of the repercussions that will be in the claim petition in MVC No.7456/2008. The common question for consideration will be whether there must be any enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants.

On Contributory Negligence

6. The Tribunal has examined the question of contributory negligence [composite negligence] as aforesaid in the light of the police investigation documents. These documents are the Sketch, IMV Report and the mahazar that are drawn at the place of accident. The material circumstances are:

[i] that the lorry was fully loaded [with sand] and was backing up from the side road onto the Highway;

[ii] that the car hit the lorry from behind; and

[iii] that the front of the car is completely damaged.

If these material facts remain undisputed, this Court cannot find fault with the Tribunal’s appreciation