Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 224 (KAR)

KRISHNAPPA v. P. YENKATANARAYANA

2000-03-15

B.K.SANGALAD

body2000
B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) BY consent of the counsel for both the sides, M. F. A. No. 3008 of 1995 is taken up for final disposal. ( 2 ) THE appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 19. 2. 1992 in m. V. C. No. 1322 of 1988, has preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) THE appellant was the driver of the autorickshaw bearing No. CAW 1169 and he claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 for the injuries sustained by him. The compensation of Rs. 15,000 was awarded. It is also held by the Tribunal that this appellant was responsible to the extent of 30 per cent for the occurrence of this accident. Another case M. V. C. No. 1323 of 1988 was filed claiming compensation of rs. 25,000. He was passenger in the autorickshaw. The Tribunal has held that three vehicles are involved in this accident. ( 4 ) THE appellant was driving the autorickshaw bearing registration No. CAW 1169 on Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore and the petitioner in M. V. C. No. 1323 of 1988 was the passenger in the said autorickshaw. At that time, van in question came from the hind side and the lorry in question came from the opposite side. Both the drivers of the lorry and van were driving the vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the autorickshaw. In consequence of this, the appellant sustained injuries, for which, he has been compensated to the extent of Rs. 15,000. ( 5 ) AS far as the compensation amount is concerned, there is no dispute. The finding of the Tribunal that the appellant himself contributed to the extent of 30 per cent is also not in dispute. The driver of the lorry is held to have contributed to the extent of 20 per cent and the driver of the van 50 per cent respectively. ( 6 ) MR. A. K. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is entitled to recover the compensation amount either from the insurer of the lorry or from the Matador van or from both. His sole contention is that he is entitled to proceed against one of them or both of them. Mr. Bhat relied upon the decision in the case of Ganesh v. Syed Munned Ahamed, 2000 ACJ 1463 (Karnataka ). Mr. R. Jayaprakash, learned counsel for respondent no. His sole contention is that he is entitled to proceed against one of them or both of them. Mr. Bhat relied upon the decision in the case of Ganesh v. Syed Munned Ahamed, 2000 ACJ 1463 (Karnataka ). Mr. R. Jayaprakash, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 strenuously contended that this decision is inapplicable as the appellant himself has contributed for the accident. This decision is only applicable as far as composite negligence is concerned. Mr. Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that there was no policy in respect of the Matador van and as such, the appeal be dismissed against respondent No. 4. ( 7 ) IN view of the rival submissions, the point that arise for my consideration is that whether the appellant is entitled to recover the compensation amount either from the insurer of the lorry or the owner of the matador as there was no insurance on the date of the accident. ( 8 ) AT the very outset, it has to be stated that in the decision referred, in para 72, it is observed as follows:"therefore, in conclusion, insofar as the first question referred to the Full Bench by the Division Bench is concerned, my answer is that in the case of a motor vehicle accident caused due to the composite negligence of the drivers of two or more vehicles, the person who is injured or the legal representatives of a person who is killed in such an accident, are entitled to claim the entire compensation from all or any of the drivers, owners and insurers of the vehicles. " ( 9 ) IN the decided case, the insurer was travelling in the lorry. There was head-on collision between two lorries. BTS bus was also involved but it was exonerated. The ratio laid down in the decided case is that in case of composite negligence, the petitioner is entitled to recover the compensation amount from all or any of the drivers, owners or insurers of the vehicles. ( 10 ) IN the case on hand, the facts are little bit peculiar. In this case, the appellant who is injured has also contributed to the extent of 30 per cent. The three vehicles are involved in the accident. Under such circumstances, whether it can be held that he is estopped from recovering the compensation amount as laid down in the above cited case. In this case, the appellant who is injured has also contributed to the extent of 30 per cent. The three vehicles are involved in the accident. Under such circumstances, whether it can be held that he is estopped from recovering the compensation amount as laid down in the above cited case. In my opinion, it cannot be. The Tribunal has held that the appellant has contributed to the extent of 30 per cent. In view of this finding, the appellant cannot claim to the extent of 30 per cent. In the remaining 70 per cent, whether he could claim either from the driver, owner, or insurer of one vehicle or both the vehicles. Mr. Jayaprakash, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that when the appellant himself has contributed to the extent of 30 per cent he is totally debarred from claiming compensation. This submission cannot be accepted. After foregoing 30 per cent of the compensation, the remaining balance he can claim as this accident stood on the same footing as that of composite negligence. Between the lorry and the Matador, it is composite negligence as far as appellant is concerned. In my opinion the ratio laid down in the case of Ganesh v. Syed Munned Ahamed, 2000 acj 1463 (Karnataka), is aptly and justly applicable as far as 70 per cent of the liability is concerned. Therefore, the following order: in the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is entitled to recover 70 per cent of the compensation amount either from the driver, owner or insurer of the lorry or from the owner or driver of the matador van. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .