Partly allowed

Sri S N Anantharam v. Sri R Girish

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2020MFA/1338/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding that the claimant was 40% contributorily negligent and the quantum of compensation. The High Court reduced contributory negligence to 20% and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,39,120 with 6% interest from filing date; contributory negligence reduced to 20%.

Sri S N Anantharam Vs Sri R Girish — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1338 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S.N. ANANTHARAM S/O LATE S.R.N. SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A NO.31/1, 5^TH CROSS, N.G.R. LAYOUT, RUPENA AGRAHARA, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. V.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. R.GIRISH S/O R. RAGHAVENDRA RAO,

¶13

MAJOR, NO.96, ‘G’ BLOCK, 4^TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA,

¶14

MYSORE.

¶15

M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.1, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1656/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Though this appeal is posted for admission, as records from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, are received, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

This appeal is filed by the claimant calling in question the Judgment and Award passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), Bengaluru (SCCH-11) holding that the claimant is guilty of

¶24

¶25

contributory negligence by 40%. The claimant has also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶26

The appellant shall henceforth be referred to as the ‘claimant’ and respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall henceforth be referred to as the ‘owner’ and ‘insurer’ respectively of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.

¶27

The claim petition discloses that on 19.08.2010 at about 9:15 p.m., when the claimant was crossing Hosur Road near Rupena Agrahara bus stop, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09-EA-2941 (henceforth referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant suffered injuries all over his body and was shifted to St. John’s hospital, Bengaluru, where he spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards his treatment, food, conveyance, medicines etc. The claimant, therefore, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

¶28

¶29

1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶30

The owner of the offending vehicle denied the averments of the claim petition and stated that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2insurer and the rider of the offending vehicle had valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. In the alternative, he contended that the claimant had contributed to the cause of the accident.

¶31

The insurer contended that it was the claimant, who was negligent in crossing the road at an undesignated place. Thus, it claimed that it was not liable to pay the compensation.

¶32

The claimant was examined as PW.1 and the Doctor, who treated the claimant was examined as PW.2 and they marked Exs.P1 to P17 while the insurer and the owner of the offending vehicle did not lead any evidence and did not mark any document.

¶33

¶34

The Tribunal relied upon the sketch of the scene of the accident prepared by the Madiwala Traffic Police at Ex.P4, which indicated that the accident occurred in the middle of Hosur main road and that the claimant was crossing the road where there was no zebra crossing mark or other signal. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the claimant was crossing the road where he should not have. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1998 Kar 1934 ( Sri Narasimhaiah vs. The General Manager and Another ) and held that the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 40%.

¶35

In so far as the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant is concerned, it noted that the claimant had suffered fracture of left tibial condyle and was operated with internal fixatures and discharged on 02.09.2010.

¶36

The Tribunal noticed that the claimant was a law professional and therefore, considered his income at a

¶37

¶38

sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and having regard to the evidence of PW.2 that the claimant was an inpatient between 19.08.2010 to 02.09.2010 and that he suffered functional disability, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation:

¶39

Sl. No.	Heads under which compensation is awarded	Amount (in Rupees)
1	Loss of income	5,000/-
2	Future medical expenses	20,000/-
3	Pain and suffering	20,000/-
4	Loss of future amenities	40,000/-
5	Conveyance	20,000/-
	TOTAL	1,05,000/-

¶40

The Tribunal in view of its finding that the claimant had contributed to the extent of 40% towards causation of the accident, deducted 40% of the compensation (Rs.1,05,000/- - Rs.42,000/-) and awarded compensation of Rs.63,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization while directing respondent No.2 - insurer to deposit the said compensation with interest within the time stipulated therein.

¶41

¶42

The claimant, is therefore, in this appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal attributing contributory negligence on him and contends that there was no evidence adduced by the respondents to indicate that there was contributory negligence on his part in causation of the accident. He also contended that the Tribunal could not have merely relied upon the sketch of the scene of the accident prepared by the Police to hold that the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence. He contended that the insurer ought to have examined the rider of the motorcycle to establish that the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence.

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer – respondent No.2 contended that a perusal of the sketch would indicate that the claimant had crossed road at an undesignated place and the rider of the motorcycle had no occasion to visualize the claimant crossing the road at an undesignated place and therefore, he should be held to be responsible for the causation of the accident. He also

¶44

¶45

reiterated that this Court in the decision reported in ILR 1998 Kar 1934 (referred supra), had held that if a pedestrian crosses the road at an undesignated place, he should be deemed to be guilty of contributory negligence. Taking cue from the said judgment, learned counsel contends that the Tribunal had rightly held that the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence.

¶46

The Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards nourishment, food and attendant charges and the compensation of Rs.5000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is meager and deserves to be enhanced. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards disability suffered by the claimant even though PW.2 has stated in his evidence that the claimant had suffered 16% to the left lower limb. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be re-determined as follows:

¶47

¶48

Sl. No.	Heads under which compensation is awarded	Amount (in Rupees)
1	Loss of income during the period of laid-up period at Rs.10,000/- per month	30,000/-
2.	Future medical expenses	20,000/-
3.	Pain and suffering	20,000/-
4.	Loss of income due to disability at 6% to the whole body	50,400/-
5.	Attendant charges at the rate of Rs.150 for 3 months	13,500/-
6.	Loss of amenities	20,000/-
7.	Conveyance	20,000/-
	TOTAL	1,73,900/-

¶49

In so far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, it is noticed from Ex.P4 that the claimant had already crossed 50% of the road and therefore, it was the rider of the motorcycle who should have exercised caution and who could have easily averted the accident. The road at this place is straight and therefore, the rider of the motorcycle could not claim that he did not see the claimant crossing the road. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the accident occurred at 9:15 p.m., the claimant ought to have exercised some

¶50

¶51

amount of caution that too while crossing the busy road such as Hosur road. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was 62 years old at the time of the accident, some amount of contributory negligence has to be attributed to the claimant. Hence, the contributory negligence attributed by the Tribunal on the part of the claimant is reduced from 40% to 20%. Consequently, compensation to which the claimant is entitled to has to be proportionately reduced to 20%. Hence, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

This appeal is allowed in part .

¶54

The impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is modified and as against compensation of Rs.63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,39,120/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶55

¶56

The respondent No.2 – insurer is directed to deposit the compensation with interest as stated above within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment.

¶57

Sd/- JUDGE

¶58

sma

Sri S N Anantharam v. Sri R Girish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S N Anantharam v. Sri R Girish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Laxmamma Vs the Manager

Sri Gangi Reddy Vs P Sreenivasulu Reddy

Praxair India Private Limited Vs Inox Air Products Private Limited

The Branch Manager Vs Ningamma

D Madhavamurthy S/O Late v G Doraiswamy Vs R Govindaswamy Since Dead by His Lrs

Hanumantha Naika Vs Sri Pattabi Ramegowda H a