High Court allowed the appellant's appeal partly, reducing the contributory negligence from 50% to 20% and enhancing compensation to Rs.2,34,000/- based on medical evidence and notional income.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,34,000/- with 6% p.a. interest; judgment of the Tribunal modified.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
MFA No. 20054 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20054/2011 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by J MAMATHA JMAMATHA Location:DharwadDate: 2022.09.09 11:10:51 +0530
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.900/2015 BY VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND ETC.
MFA No. 20054 of 2011
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company.
MFA No. 20054 of 2011
but the Tribunal has taken 11% permanent disability and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,13,400/- and deducted 50% of the compensation in coming to the conclusion that there is a negligence on the part of the rider of the claimant. Hence, the present appeal is filed.
MFA No. 20054 of 2011
MFA No. 20054 of 2011
Point No.1:
the parties and also on perusal of the documents available on record, particularly, the sketch which is marked as Ex.P4 shows that the accident was taken place when the claimant was taking the vehicle towards Islamia school and the offending vehicle came in the opposite direction and no doubt, he was proceeding in the main road and this claimant was proceeding towards right side and almost he has taken the right side and when the contributory negligence is concerned, the Tribunal ought not to have presumed the same and there must be a cogent evidence before the Court. The insurance company has not examined the rider of the offending motorcycle to prove the contributory negligence. However, taking into note of the sketch which is produced by the claimant himself shows that he
MFA No. 20054 of 2011
was taking the right turn and he would have observed the movement of the other vehicles in the main road and there is a force in the contention of the counsel for the insurance company but the apportionment made by the Tribunal is erroneous that too a 50% and IMV report discloses that when the offending vehicle rider hit the motorcycle of the claimant, he fell down on the right side and there was a damages on the right side of the vehicle belonging to the claimant. When such being the case and when he was already almost taken the right turn and entering the Islamia school road, the Tribunal ought to have taken the negligence only to the extent of 20% and not to the extent of 50%. Hence, the point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
Point No.2:
MFA No. 20054 of 2011
comminuted fracture of tibia and fibula. When such being the case, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 11% to the whole body. The claimant was inpatient for a period of 22 days and was subjected to surgery and hence, this Court has to take the disability at 14%. Considering the age of the claimant, the correct multiplier applicable would be 15. Hence, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.94,500/- (3750X12X15X14%) towards loss of earnings.
MFA No. 20054 of 2011
Rs.18,000/- towards conveyance, food and nourishment and attendant charges.
MFA No. 20054 of 2011
ORDER
(Sd/-) JUDGE
SN/JM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in applying 50% contributory negligence to the appellant in the absence of cogent evidence?
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable considering the quantum of injury and notional income?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NAMESH S/O BAHUBALI
SHRI BILAL S/O NIYAZ SAIT
THE NEW INIDA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
