us 1-um man mum or mnnaruu In VA
DATED mm THE 18" mm or ll0VEHBl§_Ei"%§)$§: _
ms uownm me. Jusflcm Dmraai V
11-rm Hownm am. JtIs1'I¢E__ 'I I
umcmnurmotrs 19-ms? H0;55§a._Q§
BE'I''€_VEEN: * J %
ABDULLAM
s/o LATE MOHAMMED,
AGE: 34 YEARS, -.
R/0 MORLA HOUSE,
NARINCuANAV*ILIAGEI_ I
Ti-IAVDUGGLIPOSE', _ '
(By Sd.P.fiARUl§3KAR,'AD§,'} I
: V . . I . .,::'_ '.
THE UNITED INDIA INSU'RANCE__C0"LTD
BRANCH OFFTCE4, - V " ; ~ _
CAME-"C0 TOWERS, BUN_D:ER;_
MANGAL(;)RE,, .. _
,4.-3V..I{.D1sfI'IisIcfIf,
I§EI=>;£3.Y ITS Bf MANAGER. .. nzsromur.
:(I3yvsdv1s:'NAR§;Y.5nA MURTHY, ADV.)
i__i_i_i,,i_i_§
'IA'l'-HS M913 SIS FILED U/S 173(1) OF Mv ACT AGAINST THE
JLYDGMEPYR 'AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2004 PASSED IN me
~ .«.1'§;¢o.'962/20o2V'_DN THE FILE OF THE I ADDITEONAL DIS'I*RI(":'!' JUDGE
_ ANDVVMEMBER, MAC"?-II, MANGALORE, PAm*LY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
, I-?I::'I'I'2*1sC>_N"'B'OR COMPENSATION AHD SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
" ' CGMPENSATION.
"j .....?i*Hzs MISCELLANEOUS F!RS'I' APPEAL comma. on FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, nsnmx vunnu J, DELIVERED THE
'D * f" ' FQLLOWING:
7,5
JIIDGHEHT
SnP. , learned oounsci appeared H
Sri.S.Narayana Mutthy, learn" od 0011I18C3;8,."'pe4 « 31%!" 2 ' j z
2. With consent, arguments hcani. '~ VV
3. Feeling aggxieved and win; Agca§:§:i dated
21.01.2004 passed in §i2.,962/'$3002 by MAC1',
Bangalore, ciaimant is in Sa'*s:_t}f.9'tix£.'J;1'bb__1_'7}'3(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, u and adequate
compensation him in a motor mad
. mt """ ._ _ ._ ._ 1
4. An on 21.02.2002 at about 11.30
a.m., when on his Motor Cycle bearing
l§o.KA- 10 on the left side of the mad in a slow
% 'er. At that fime a bus bearm g 1%' trat1on'
by M.Ibrah1m' and ddvcfi by its dnvm" ,
o<é{ertooV ?;i1;i:Aa.;V[Jxpellant's Mator Cych: and latched Re.heman1ya'
and driver of the bus, suddenly stopped 'E,
I» any indimtion or signal thereof. The appellant who
'T g the bus, in ahscncc of any s1gnal' or guinea' ' tion was
"E
not able to oontnol his Motor Cycke and dashed H39:
portion ofthe bus. " " V
5. On a report being lodged, cr;m=__ m' alg
against the driver of the bus.
injuxies in the said accident. Hospital,
and was heated by According to
appellant, he 11% medical
Ireattncnt and 013.. sufired by him,
his business badly affected. It has aiso
been contended "i?e.10,000/- per month has
been subste,ufiefly therefore oonsuained to file a
Claim Peeuos;'-claiming isis1s1"'smoust of Rs.10,00,000/~ against
msyqdnqggtgéf A , ..... <4 .
1.1_- driver and owner had not filed any reply to I
-- "'"the filed by appefiant. It was only insurmwe
., jv»-VS-Qmpany, 'wsiss had flied its written statement It had denied the
aveeipepfé' made by the appcilant in Claim Petition in tote. It
Vt took the plea that accklcnt had taken place on account of
and negligent riding of the Motor Cycle by appellant, who lost
"ES
control and dashed against the bus due to
plea of non-joinder of proper parties, i.c.,
Motor Cycle having been not joined, t1v:e"C1m';n1f'.
be dismixed. However, it has not
Company that the ofi'cndzng' bus; g1:t"t,1_1e
insumd with the respondent in accident,
appellant had sustained liability to pay the
amount of compensation is’ of the
7′. 011 of on record, Tribunal
worked out payable to appellant at
Rs.1,79,2-4i;2[–‘–ae 1306′ the impugned award, since
appellant for causing the accident to the
extent ot’_§St}’%, the been reduced by 50% and he has
receive in all flora the respondent a sum of
Rst39,5}’?,_I]With interest at the rain of 6% per annum
T’ mmae.+’¢§.¢i:c petition 151: it is actually pm’ .
A counsel for appellant has raised primarily two
er amok in this appeal. Firstly, Tribunal oonrnaittod a
‘f V _ in working out eonttibutoxy neglii of driving of the
Cycle by appcnam: to the extent orso% and secondly while
working out Ease of teaming on account of of
Rs.25,000/- has been awarded, whemas as
Doctor, P.W.f2 and other doctors, it well T. n
pezmancnt to the whole the
9. Per contra. learned leusuranoc
Company contended ef veont1’R)utoIy
negligence of the appellant by him not
only in his cvidmcc. Thus
in the light of by ‘I’n’bunal cannot
be fauitedg “” that just, proper and
Mequate hbecn awarded, no case for
enhancement
_1′:1’:t1ia»5{e1igh:_: of the rival contentions, we have heazd mo
and criticafiy examined the docuea
‘ V ‘*~= ‘ ‘ on;
V é “The gooosis of the Climinal Case is the FIR dated
lodged by appeliant h1’xnse§’soon after the accident. In
_ VT and in afi other subsequent documents eating from
{lie FIR, appellant has categorically mentioned and deposed befom
“”73
the police that he was going on the Motor Cyck
the road, on National Highway No.17 at a L”
time, the ofiending bus came finm AV
thereby appefiant was folbwing the
giving any indicatisan or signal, $1.1′:
3!} of a sudden, near Vaatn the bus
stopped abruptly and the ag§j3ana§1t the said bus, he
dashed against the rear bi’1*s .’ he fell
down and taken to
hospital. A e e
12. The gaanchamma also indicate that
accident the left side of the road near
had come up before the ‘l’n’hunal
V. by with the aforesaid specific case and had
led in consonance with the pleaiings. FIR was
»fh_e which was recorded by the polhe, soon after
H :'”t4he.vL.ee«:iti_ent'”a¢t the instance of the appellant. Appelhnfs czmduct
that he hw come forward night fiom the very
withat:meandeorsectfacts,w1nch’ ledtotheaocaden’ t.
Y5
13. Owner of the bus was joined as one of the but
had not filed any objections to the said Claim
were filed only by the Insmanoe~”‘Compa§:;y,_:.”§§i§g;{§ of
contributory negligence of appellant . It
disputed that am: of the buslnfisyhaée “the: oontiiol
of the owner of the bus, but he file Court nor
gave evidence or what circumstances,
accident had did not take any
such plea. Tlae. able to pmducc any
evidence in tlxe appellant that accident
ma negligent driving ofthc bus
by its dz-ivvex-.,_ It common lmowbdgc that while
driving’ stop the vehicles all of a sudden
which indeed causes a gmat hardship
the. ‘V vlého an: fol1owmg_ ‘ it. in somewhat mm’
‘ bus was suddenly stopped on a highway, after
_. j;v’..<_)!vertakin'g,,t!ie appellant's vehicle. if any indication would have
that has is going to be stopped near Masjisd, appefiant
have taken suficiaent came and caution to saw or slow down
Motor Cycle. Thus, we am of the consiademd opinion that no
'E
ncgligenm can be attributed to appciiant for
accident. Thus this issue stands answered in
and the finding of the Tribunal "T.
quashed.
14. Now coming to the next has of future earning capacity as We are
of the opinion that the this head is on
lower side. As pcfthe V’ his pexmamznt
disability to a of 35%, thereby for
whoie ‘eat 12%. His income has been
assessed a t.R:s._3,()O(}f.;’:_e:per’ equivalent to Rs.36,000[- per
anmim. disability for whole body at 12%,
:_.-iose of would be reduced to Rs.4,320/- per
to the age of the appellant, pmper multiplier
V appfieble woukd be 16, which comes to Rs.69,120/–.
Thus .V 4′ 18, sub-para 6, which deals with’ loss ofem’n1ng’
disability, the amount of Rs.25,000/- as awarded is
to Rs.69,120/ -. Thus tom} amount of campmsation
VT by respondents jointly and severally, would now come to
R
Rs.2,23,362/ -. No other ground it): enhancement of pf
compcnsauion as awarded by the Tribunal has _
15. Tim aforesaid amount of Rs.2,2s,35,2.,1}
at the rate of 6% per annum from {he
actually pad’ . The amount wouiii’ atijusmd.
16. In view of the abové,’ to thc wove
extent. impugned
Respondéfit$;.””‘. of litigation thmughout.
Cot.1nse1's . 3d/'9 Judgg Sd/*3. J'udg'§ AG?»