Partly allowed

A Prahallada S/O Narasappa v. Amit S Jain W/O Sripal Jain

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2024MFA/21832/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pillion rider injured in accident involving a lorry and bus appealed against quantum of compensation and attribution of 20% contributory negligence to the deceased motorcycle rider. Court upheld the negligence apportionment but globally enhanced compensation by Rs.65,000/-, payable at 40% each by the lorry and bus insurers.

What the court decided

AI extract

A Prahallada S/O Narasappa Vs Amit S Jain W/O Sripal… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2486 MFA No. 21832 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21832 OF 2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

A.PRAHALLADA S/O. NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O : BYRAPURA VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADOCATE FOR SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
SAROJA HANGARAKI
HANGARAKI Date:
2024.02.19
15:53:01
+0530

¶13

AMIT S.JAIN W/O. SRIPAL JAIN, AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG NO.KA-21/A-4005, R/O : BEDRALA HOUSE, CHIKKAVUDNOOR VILLAGE, KEMMINJE POST, VIA DARBE, PUTTUR TALUK, MANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶14

M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO, LTD., REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BELLARY.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2486 MFA No. 21832 of 2013

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NEKRTC, OWNER OF THE KSRTC BUS, BEARING REG NO. KA-34/F-1089, BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY.

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, EDIGA HOSTEL COMPLEX, DOUBLE ROAD, BELLARY.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. VAISHALI KALADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; MRS. VINAYA KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.R. KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 SERVED)

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 19-06-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.29/2012 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-IX, BELLARY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2486 MFA No. 21832 of 2013

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Though the matter is listed for admission, with the

¶25

consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶26

Claimant’s appeal challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.29/2012 dated 19.06.2012 on file of the Addl.MACT, Bellary.

¶27

Admitted facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

¶28

3.1 Appellant being the pillion rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-34/F-1908 laid a claim for accidental injuries sustained by him involving the lorry bearing No.KA-21/A -

¶29

4005 and bus bearing No.KA-34/F-1089.

¶30

3.2 On contest, claim petition came to be allowed in a sum of Rs.1,14,632 as compensation. Tribunal took into consideration the admission made by the very appellant in his evidence that the rider of the motorcycle did not

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2486 MFA No. 21832 of 2013

¶32

possess the driving license, attributed 20% of contributory negligence to the rider of the motorcycle who lost his life in the accident and 40% each to the lorry and the KSRTC bus.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as well as attributing 20% contributory negligence, appellant is before this Court.

¶34

Smt. Sowbhagya learned counsel representing appellant vehemently contended that insofar as pillion rider is concerned attributing contributory negligence to the rider of the motorcycle has resulted in injustice and so also the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side.

¶35

Per contra, Sri.G.N.Raichur and Smt.Vyshali supported the the impugned judgment; So also learned counsel for the insurer of the motorcycle Miss.Vinaya Kuppelur supported the impugned judgment.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2486 MFA No. 21832 of 2013

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court has perused the material on record meticulously.

¶38

Admittedly charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the bus as well as the driver of the lorry. However, taking note of the admission made by the very appellant who was examined before the trial court as PW.3 who is also an injured eye witness in the incident, tribunal attributed 20% contributory negligence on the rider of the motorcycle in as much as he did not posses the driving license. Therefore, there is sufficient reason for the trial court to apportion the negligence among three drivers who are rider of the motorcycle, driver of the lorry and driver of the bus in the ration of 20:40:40.

¶39

Though, Smt.Sowbhagya, counsel vehemently contended that attributing 20% contributory negligence to the rider of the motorcycle is incorrect having regard to the unequivocal admission made by PW.3 who is the appellant that rider of the motorcycle did not have the driving license, in the considered opinion of this court

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2486 MFA No. 21832 of 2013

¶41

attributing contributory negligence to the extent of 20% is just and proper.

¶42

This would take us to the next question of quantum of compensation on the head of loss of future earnings, the tribunal has taken into consideration the monthly income of the injured in a sum of Rs.120/- per day. It should have been minimum of Rs.6000/- p.m. for the accidental injury of the year 2011.

¶43

So also on the head loss of amenities, tribunal has granted only Rs.2,000/-. On the head of attendant and nourishment charges tribunal has granted in a sum of Rs.3,000/- each, which is on the lower side. Since monthly income is not taken properly on the said head also the claimant is entitled for reasonable enhancement.

¶44

Thus, instead of enhancing the compensation on each and every head if the compensation is enhanced in a sum of Rs.65,000/- globally, ends of justice would be met.

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2486 MFA No. 21832 of 2013

¶46

Accordingly, as against Rs.1,14,632/- the claimant would be entitled to Rs.1,79,632. 20% contributory negligence on the rider of the motorcycle being maintained, in the enhanced sum of Rs.65,000/-, the remaining 80% of compensation is to be paid by the insurance company of the lorry and the KSRTC bus have to pay at 40% each.

¶47

14. With the above modification, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) Appeal allowed in part.

¶50

ii) As against compensation of Rs1,14,632/claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs1,79,632/-. Since 20% of the contributory negligence is attributed to the rider of the motorcycle, in the enhanced compensation of Rs.65,000/-, insurance company of the lorry and

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2486 MFA No. 21832 of 2013

¶52

the bus are directed to pay Rs.26,000/- each

¶53

denoting 40% of the enhanced compensation.

¶54

iii) Ordered accordingly.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

HMB

¶57

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20

A Prahallada S/O Narasappa v. Amit S Jain W/O Sripal Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A Prahallada S/O Narasappa v. Amit S Jain W/O Sripal Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Maheshwar S/O. Veerasangayya Hiremath Vs Shri. Chidananda S/O. Durgundayya Hiremath

Andappa S/O. Basappa Naganur @ Nidagundi Vs Falvia Carlo W/O. Vincent Prakash Carlo

Anusuya W/O. Gajanan Badiger Vs Smt. Basavva W/O. Basavantappa Mestri Alias Badiger

Shivamurthy S/O. Venkatappa Vs Chinnaswamy S/O. Subbappa

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Santosh S/O Ramesh Habib

Sri Gurunath S/O Ramu Gadivaddar Vs Smt. Shilpa W/O Gurunatha Gadiwadar