High Court of Karnataka Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation Due to Contributory Negligence. Claimants' Cross-Objection for Enhanced Compensation Dismissed as Deceased Pedestrian Found 50% Negligent for Crossing Road Without Caution.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from a motor accident claim petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Khajasab, who died in a road accident on 18-03-2008. The deceased was a pedestrian crossing the road when a TVS Star City motorcycle bearing registration KA-36-Q-8857, driven by its owner Chikka Narashimhalu, hit him. The claimants, including the widow, minor daughter, son, and mother of the deceased, sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Gangavathi. The Tribunal, by judgment and award dated 15-06-2009 in MVC No.329/2008, held the driver negligent and awarded Rs.3,69,500/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. The Insurance Company, National Insurance Co. Ltd., appealed against the award (MFA No.23745/2010) primarily on the ground that the deceased was negligent in crossing the road without observing traffic. The claimants filed a cross-objection (MFA Crob No.100195/2014) seeking enhancement of compensation. The High Court analyzed the evidence, including the complaint and charge sheet, and found that the deceased crossed the road without looking for oncoming vehicles, contributing to the accident. The court held that both the driver and the deceased were equally negligent, fixing contributory negligence at 50% on the deceased. Consequently, the compensation was reduced to Rs.1,84,750/- (50% of Rs.3,69,500/-). The cross-objection was dismissed. The court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the reduced amount with accrued interest, and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the same.

Headnote

A) Motor Vehicles Act - Contributory Negligence - Pedestrian Crossing Road - Deceased pedestrian crossed road without observing traffic and was hit by a TVS Star vehicle - Held that the deceased was equally negligent for the accident and contributory negligence to the extent of 50% should be fixed on him (Paras 10-12).

B) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Quantum - Deceased aged 67 years, vegetable vendor earning Rs.3,000/- per month - Tribunal awarded Rs.3,69,500/- - Held that after deducting 50% for contributory negligence, claimants are entitled to Rs.1,84,750/- with interest at 7% p.a. (Paras 13-15).

C) Motor Vehicles Act - Cross-Objection - Enhancement of Compensation - Claimants sought enhancement - Held that since contributory negligence is fixed, cross-objection fails and is dismissed (Para 16).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing negligence on the driver of the vehicle and in awarding compensation without considering contributory negligence of the deceased pedestrian.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal (MFA No.23745/2010) is allowed in part. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified. The contributory negligence of the deceased is fixed at 50%. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,84,750/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. The cross-objection (MFA Crob No.100195/2014) is dismissed. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the reduced amount with accrued interest within six weeks. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the same.

Law Points

  • Contributory negligence
  • Motor accident compensation
  • Negligence of pedestrian
  • Apportionment of liability
  • Interest rate on compensation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (KAR) (03) 19

M.F.A.No.23745/2010 (MV) c/w M.F.A.Crob.No.100195/2014 (MV)

2018-03-05

B.A. Patil

Sri Laxman B. Mannoddar (for appellant), Sri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar (for respondents/cross-objectors)

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt. Gousia W/o Khajasab & Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against award of compensation in motor accident claim and cross-objection for enhancement.

Remedy Sought

Insurance Company sought reduction of compensation on ground of contributory negligence; claimants sought enhancement of compensation.

Filing Reason

Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal's finding of negligence on the driver and the quantum of compensation; claimants sought higher compensation.

Previous Decisions

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Gangavathi in MVC No.329/2008 awarded Rs.3,69,500/- with interest at 7% p.a. holding the driver negligent.

Issues

Whether the deceased pedestrian was guilty of contributory negligence? What should be the apportionment of negligence between the driver and the deceased? Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant/Insurance Company argued that the deceased crossed the road without observing traffic and was negligent, and the Tribunal erred in fixing 100% negligence on the driver. Respondents/Claimants argued that the driver was solely negligent and the compensation awarded was inadequate, seeking enhancement.

Ratio Decidendi

A pedestrian crossing a road without observing oncoming traffic is guilty of contributory negligence. In such cases, negligence can be apportioned equally between the driver and the pedestrian. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal must be reduced proportionately.

Judgment Excerpts

The deceased was a pedestrian and he was crossing the road without observing the traffic. The driver of the vehicle also did not take proper care. Therefore, both are equally negligent. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that the deceased was also negligent to the extent of 50%. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,84,750/- with interest at 7% p.a.

Procedural History

The claimants filed MVC No.329/2008 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & M.A.C.T., Gangavathi, which awarded Rs.3,69,500/- on 15-06-2009. The Insurance Company appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MFA No.23745/2010). The claimants filed a cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC (MFA Crob No.100195/2014). Both were heard together and disposed of by this judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 173(1)
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41 Rule 22
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Condonation of Delay Application in FERA/FEMA Appeal — Limitation Period Governed by FERA Section 54, Not FEMA Section 49(5)(c). The court held that the appeal against the Appellate Tribunal's order under FEMA is governe...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation Due to Contributory Negligence. Claimants' Cross-Objection for Enhanced Compensation Dismissed as Deceased Pedestrian Found 50% Negligent for C...