Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22780
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SONY GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
SREEJITH K.G. – Respondent
MACA NO. 3517 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.TINY THOMAS
For the Respondents: S.JAYAKRISHNAN, R.GIREESH VARMA
Contributory negligence does not bar a claimant from receiving compensation; it only reduces the amount recoverable based on the claimant's share of negligence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim for compensation due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident - The Tribunal found contributory negligence on the part of both the claimant and the other driver, leading to dismissal of the claim - The court found the dismissal legally unsustainable as damages should be reduced only in proportion to the claimant's negligence. (Paras 5, 14, 20)
(B) Negligence - The distinction between contributory and composite negligence - If both parties contributed to the accident, the claimant is entitled to compensation reduced by their share of negligence. (Paras 11, 12, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed compensation for injuries sustained in an accident involving two vehicles, asserting the other driver was negligent, while the respondents contended the petitioner was at fault.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim outright, as there was contributory negligence, and directed the insurer to pay 50% of the compensation.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim based on joint tort-feasor status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the finding of the Tribunal was not legally sustainable and emphasized that contributory negligence does not bar the claim but merely reduces the compensation.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's clarification on contributory negligence and compensation entitlement. (Para 19) |
| 2. final ruling regarding compensation allocation. (Para 20) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2025 The petitioner in OP(MV).No.521 of 2015 on the file of Motor accident Claims Tribunal Pala is the appellant. The respondents in the OP are the respondents herein. He filed the above OP under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.10.2011.
2. According to the petitioner, on 15.10.2011, he was riding a two wheeler TN 09 AB 1035 and when it reached Pala Kottaramattom on Pala Vaikom road, another two wheeler KL 36A 4654, rode by 1st respondent, collided with his two wheeler and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. The 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent. In the petition, he claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-
3. The 1st respondent filed written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. According to him, he was driving the vehicle with due care and caution and the accident occurred as the petitioner, who was moving in front of the two wheeler of the petitioner suddenly turned his vehicle, without giving signal and that is why the accident occurred. The 2nd respondent also raised similar contentions and contended that the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation.
4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 and RW1 and Exhibits A1 to A12 series, B1 and B2. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant also, that since he is one of the tort-feasors, he is not entitled to compensation from the other tort-feasor and thereafter dismissed the petition. Dissatisfied with the impugned order of the Tribunal, he preferred this appeal.
5. Now, the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner is a joint tort-feasor?
6. Heard Sri. R. Krishnakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. R. Gireesh Varma, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
7. The point: The fact that the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident involving two vehicles, is not disputed. At the time of the accident on 15.10.2011, the petitioner was riding his two wheeler TN 09AB 1035 and the 1st respondent was riding his two wheeler KL 36A 4654. While according to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent, according to the respondents, the accident occurred as the petitioner, who was moving in front of the motor vehicle of the 1st respondent, suddenly moved the vehicle towards right, without giving signal. Interestingly, in this case, the police filed two charges, one against the petitioner and the other against the 1st respondent. Both sides also adduced evidence in support of their rival contentions.
8. Exhibit A1 is the copy of the FIR in crime No.1102/2011 Pala Police Station and Exhibit A2 is the copy of FIS in the said crime. Exhibit A3 is the copy of the scene mahazar and Exhibit A4 is the copy of the AMVI report of the vehicle KL36 A 4654. Exhibit A5 is the copy of final report (B charge) against the 1st respondent. On the side of the respondent certified copy of A charge was produced and marked as Exhibit B1. Exhibit B2 is the copy of the Award of MACT, Kottayam in OP MV 503 of 2014 filed by the 1st respondent as claimant. In Exhibit B2, MACT, Kottayam found that the petitioner herein as well as the 1st respondent herein contributed to the accident and accordingly, only 50% of the compensation was awarded in favour of the 1st respondent herein.
