Sultan Salauddin vs Sangappa

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The appellant dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal in a motor vehicle accident has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement, challenging the finding on negligence.

The facts reveal that on 15.02.2009 at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant was returning to his village with his brother in an autorickshaw bearing reg. No. KA-38/3838. At that time, an accident occurred by hitting the maxi cab bearing reg. No. KA-38/2230. Therefore, he claimed compensation against the owner of the maxi cab and the insurer.

The Tribunal held the negligence to an extent of 50% by each of the drivers of both the vehicles and granted a sum of Rs. 15,500-00 as compensation to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the findings on negligence and also the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the insurer is liable to indemnify and to pay the compensation awarded for the reason that there was composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicle and the Tribunal committed an error in directing the insurer to pay only 50% of the compensation awarded. He also submits that the compensation granted is meager.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer supports the Judgment and Award and submits that just compensation has been granted.

Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Arun alias Aravind, ; wherein it has been held that when there is an accident due to the negligence of two drivers of two vehicles and the injured has not contributed any negligence, being an inmate of the vehicle, the principle of composite negligence could be applied and the insurer of any one of the vehicles could be made liable to pay the compensation. In view of this principle laid-down, whatever compensation is granted has to be paid by the 2nd respondent/insurer.

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the C.T. Scan report reveals a suspected fracture of right frontal bone. There was no confirmation of the said fracture. Mild cerebral edema was found. There was a hemorrhage in the left maxillary and ethmoid sinuses. In the circumstances, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 15,500-00 as compensation towards pain, suffering, medical expenses and other expenses. There is a grievous injury i.e., a mild generalized cerebral edema and therefore, it appears that though there was no fracture, there was an injury to the brain. The doctor is not examined to speak of any disability or to clarify the suspected fracture.

Taking into consideration, the aforesaid facts and circumstances and as the appellant has suffered a severe injury, a sum of Rs. 30,000-00 more, than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable on all the heads inclusive of pain, suffering, mental agony, medical expenses, loss of income etc., with reasonable interest.

In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 45,500-00, with interest at 6% p.a. on Rs. 15,500-00 awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the petition till its payment and on the enhanced amount of Rs. 30,000-00 is payable with interest at 9% p. a. from the date of the petition till its payment. The insurer/2nd respondent is liable to pay the aforesaid sum to the appellant.