Latest News
Back
Document:
Karnataka HC: “It is not in dispute with regard to the accident, the only dispute is with regard to the negligence is concerned.”
The facts of the case are that the claimants were proceeding on 11.03.2008 at about 1:00 p.m, on the motorcycle as rider and pillion rider respectively, J.P.Nagar Ring Road, Bengaluru, at that time, a Lorry came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimants' vehicle. As a result, both of them fell and sustained grievous injuries, and suffered permanent disability.
The Insurance Company appeared through the Counsel and filed an objection statement denying the averments made in the claim petitions contending that the liability subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and also denied the age, income, and avocation of the claimants and so also denied the nature of injuries sustained by them. It was further contended that the rider of the motorcycle was overtaken the lorry from its left-hand side, to enter the 24th main road towards the south-ward direction, in the process taking the turn, he had hit the front portion of the Lorry in the middle of the road-junction and thereby the accident occurred and no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petitions of the petitioners in part granting compensation of Rs.84,015/- in respect of the rider and Rs.1,74,450/- in respect of the pillion rider with 6% interest per annum from the date of the petition. The negligence of the rider was taken as 40% and after deducting the same, an amount of Rs.84,015/- had been allowed in favor of the petitioner. Hence, these two appeals are filed by the claimants questioning the quantum of compensation and also negligence assessed at 40%.
The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that in both the claimant petitions the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding reasonable compensation. Predominantly, the income taken was on the lower side and the compensation awarded on all the heads also very meager.
The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal appreciated the documentary evidence and the claimants have not disputed the contents and the same have been admitted during the course of cross-examination. When the admission elicited from the mouth of the claimants even in the absence of the evidence of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal rightly assessed the negligence on the part of the driver to the extent of 40% and there is no merit in the appeals.
The Court concluded that there is negligence on the part of the rider/claimant. Hence, out of the total compensation of Rs.1,50,150/-, 25% has to be deducted towards negligence, it comes to Rs.1,12,620/-. In all, the appellant/claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,12,620/- as against Rs.84,015/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit excluding the interest for a period of 444 days in filing the appeal.
Document:
