IN ORDER TO TAKE THE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, THERE MUST BE COGENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT, UNLESS THE DRIVER HAS BEEN EXAMINED. HE IS THE RIGHT PERSON TO SPEAK WITH REGARD TO THE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS CONCERNED AND NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN LED BEFORE THE COURT SAYS: KARNATAKA HC
In the matter of M/S. Oriental Insurance Company … vs Laxmamma on 23 November, 2022(M.F.A.NO.2841/2013 (MV-D)) presided by The hon’ble justice H.P. Sandesh it is stated that this m.f.a. is given according to § 173 paragraph 1 mv against the judgment and order of 29.11.2012 made in mvc no. 765/2009 in the file of the register civil judge (sr.dn) and mact, mandya, awards a compensation of rs.6,06,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till implementation.
FACST OF THE CASE
The factual basis of the applicant’s case before the Tribunal is that her son died in an accident. That’s why she filed a claim. The Tribunal, after considering both the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.6,06,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of submission of the petition until its processing. While calculating the compensation, the Tribunal considered the income of Rs.6,000/- per month. This appeal is therefore filed by the Insurance Company and contends that the income accepted by the Tribunal in the amount of Rs.6000/- is on the higher side and it was an accident in the year 2005. Learned counsel would contend that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the deceased himself and the complicity of negligence was not recognized. Learned counsel would also submit that the written statement specifically pleads negligence on the part of the deceased. It therefore requires the intervention of this court. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff would submit that though the defense of contributory negligence was taken in the written statement, he did not lead any evidence before the Court and did not examine the driver of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal was right to disregard the contributory negligence. Therefore, the question of assuming co-payment due to negligence does not arise. Learned counsel would also submit that even though the Tribunal took an income of Rs.6,000/- per month, the deceased was a professional driver and the driving license of the deceased Ex.P7 was produced before the Court, the Tribunal took the income of Rs.6,000/- and no future prospects added when calculating dependency loss. The Tribunal therefore committed no error.
JUDGMENT
The hon’ble justice H.P. Sandesh observed that the appeal is dismissed. The deposit amount, if any, will be forwarded to the relevant tribunal without delay. The Registry is ordered to hand over the records to the appropriate tribunal without delay
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHA L NALWAR