Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, Karnataka High Court
Can’t Say That Victim Only Contributed To Accident Merely Because He Had No Driving License When Other Vehicle's Rider Was Solely At Fault: Karnataka High Court
|A claimant had preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenging the order rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The Karnataka High Court has granted enhanced motor accident compensation and set aside the contributory negligence attributed to the claimant. The High Court has held that just because the victim was not holding a driving license to ride his vehicle, it cannot be held that he contributed to the accident when other convincing evidence showed that the rider of the other vehicle was solely at fault.
A claimant had preferred an appeal before the High Court challenging the order rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The Single Bench of Justice Chillakur Sumalatha held, “Only because the appellant was not holding driving license to ride his vehicle which is involved in the accident it cannot be held that he contributed to the accident to occur when all other convincing evidence speaks that the rider of the other vehicle which is involved in the accident was solely at fault. Therefore, this Court holds that the Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.”
Advocate Sampath Kumar represented the Appellant while Advocate O. Mahesh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case as projected by the appellant was that when he was proceeding on his motorcycle along with his relative, the rider of other motorcycle drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and at a high speed, came on the extreme right side of the road and dashed against his motorcycle, due to which he fell and sustained injuries. The appellant raised his claims on the grounds that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and the compensation granted was too meagre.
Reasoning
The Bench noted the version of appellant that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The appellant earlier admitted that he was not holding a driving license to ride the motorcycle which was involved in the accident. It was also noticed that the owner of the vehicle, who was arrayed as one of the respondents before the Tribunal, failed to contest the matter, and therefore, he was set ex parte. The insurance company, except for producing the policy of insurance, did not adduce any other evidence, more particularly any evidence concerning the alleged contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.
The Bench said, “On the other hand, the appellant apart from examining himself as Pw.1, produced Ex.P1- copy of charge sheet, Ex.P2-copy of FIR and Ex.P3-copy of complaint which all speaks that the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-13-V-3715 alone was at fault. Thus no material whatsoever is on record to show that the appellant contributed for the accident to occur.”
On the aspect of quantum of compensation, the appellant brought to the Court’s notice that the appellant sustained grievous injuries due to the accident, and the injury sustained to the left leg ultimately resulted in amputation. The Bench found that the total disability for the left lower limb was about 80%. As per the Bench, the appellant succeeded in establishing that immediately after the accident, he got admitted into the hospital, took the treatment required, which included a surgery and left the hospital on discharge. It was not the case of the second respondent that the appellant left the hospital against medical advice.
The appellant’s fracture did not unite since there was partial vascular injury and also a high grade of infection. It was also noted that the amputation of the left leg above the knee was due to the injuries sustained during the accident. The medical certificate also disclosed that the left leg was amputated. “Having considered the nature of injury sustained to the left leg which ultimately resulted in its amputation above knee, this Court is of the view that the disability in respect of whole body can be considered as 35%”, the Bench mentioned.
Thus, allowing the appeal in part, the Bench set aside the contributory negligence attributed on the part of the appellant and enhanced the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by Rs 5,67,000.
Cause Title: Shivegowda v. Nanjeshgowda (Neutral Citation:2025:KHC:26238)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates Sampath Kumar, Pratheep K. C.
Respondent: Advocate O. Mahesh