AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—This is a claimant''s appeal to set aside the judgment of dismissal of claim petition.
I have heard Sri Maheshkiran Shelly, learned Counsel for claimant and Sri Rajashekhar learned Counsel for Insurance Company.
It is established from evidence en record that on 04.06.2005 at about 3.05 p.m. claimant was traveling in a public passenger bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 from Kundapur to Maravanthe. When the bus was proceeding near Maravanthe. It dashed against another bus bearing No. KA-20-9018. Which was proceeding ahead.
The owner of bus did not contest the claim petition. The Insurance Company contested the claim petition, contending that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus bearing No. KA-20-9018 as he had abruptly stopped without giving any signal. The driver of bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 was driving bus at a moderate speed. The bus bearing No. KA-19-8755 dashed against bus bearing No. KA-20-9018. Therefore, driver of bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 was not guilty of rash and negligent driving.
The Tribunal on consideration of admission made by claimant has held that driver of bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 was not at fault. On the other hand, the driver of bus bearing No. KA-20-9018 had abruptly stopped the bus, without giving any signal, Therefore, bus bearing No. KA-19- 3755 dashed against bus bearing No. KA-20-9018. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that claimant has failed to prove that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 in which she was travelling. Therefore, Tribunal has held that claimant is pot entitled to claim compensation.
In my considered opinion, the approach of Tribunal is erroneous for the following reasons:
As far as claimant was concerned, it was a case of composite negligence. The claimant was not a tort-feaser. Therefore, claimant is entitled to proceed against any of the tort-feasors. The insurance company had not taken steps to implead the other tort-feasor.
The matter can be considered from another angle also. Admittedly, bus bearing No. KA-20-9018 was proceeding ahead of bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 on N.H.17. Both buses are public passenger carrying buses. The driver of bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 should have maintained safety distance between bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 and bus bearing No. KA-20-9018. The driver of bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 could foresee the risk of driver of bus bearing No. KA-20-9018 abruptly stopping the bus due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, driver of bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 was expected to maintain safety distance between two vehicles so that he could have avoided the accident even if bus bearing No. KA-20-9018, which was proceeding ahead of bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 had been abruptly stopped. The driver of bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 was not examined before Tribunal to prove that he was maintaining safety distance between bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 driven by him and bus bearing No. KA-20-9018. The Tribunal without comprehending basic facts has committed following errors:
I. The Tribunal has fastened burden of proof on claimant, though claimant was not a tort-feasor.
II. The Tribunal has found fault with claimant for not imp leading owner and insurer of bus bearing No. KA-20-9018.
III. The Tribunal has failed to notice that driver of bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 was not examined to prove that he was maintaining safety distance.
Therefore, I hold that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus bearing No. KA-19-3755 and Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
Regarding quantification of compensation: 8. As could be seen from wound certificate, claimant had suffered following injuries:
I. Abrasion measuring 1 cm x 1 cm on right side of forehead
II. Abrasion measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on right side of nose
The injuries are simple in nature.
Therefore, I award global compensation of Rs. 6,000/- at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per each injury.
In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned judgment is set aside. I award global compensation of Rs. 6.000/- which shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondents I and II are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The entire compensation with accrued interest shall be paid to claimant. Parties are directed to bear their costs.