Karnataka High Court: While considering the instant appeal wherein the issue was that whether the claimant, who was a pillion rider, had contributed her negligence towards the accident and that whether she is entitled for compensation towards loss of future income due to disability; the Bench of Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.*, pointed out that the claimant knew fully well that 4 people were riding on the motorcycle, and invited the risk for herself while travelling on the motor cycle a pillion with the other 3; therefore, she had also contributed her negligence amounting to 20% towards the accident. Hence, whatever amount of compensation is determined, the claimant is entitled to only 80% of the total compensation amount determined.
Background: The police records in the instant case showed that 4 persons, including the claimant, were riding on a motorcycle. The persons had sustained injury due to self-fall while travelling on the motorcycle near Wonderla gate. The claimant in the instant case was a pillion rider.
Based on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal had granted total compensation of Rs 5,87,029 which included Rs.1,72,800 towards loss of future income due to disability.
Aggrieved with the afore-stated verdict, ICICI Lombard filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and award dated passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and questioning the quantum of compensation by contending that the claimant had contributed her negligence towards the accident.
Per contra, counsels for the claimant submitted that the claimant was a pillion rider; and just because, there were three pillion riders on the motorcycle, the same is not a ground to say that the claimant had also contributed negligence towards the accident.
Court’s Assessment: Perusing the facts of case, the Court was of the view that the claimant knowingly put herself at risk of accident when she rode a pillion on a motorcycle with 3 persons already sitting on it. Therefore, the claimant had 20% contribution of negligence towards the accident.
Furthermore, the Court opined that the claimant’s contributory negligence meant that she was entitled to 80% of the compensation as determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The Court noted that the Tribunal had granted compensation of Rs 1,72,800 towards loss of future income due to disability. However, the Court pointed out that the claimant continued to work as a Customer Relation Officer at Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd., even after the accident and there is no evidence that she was terminated from service due to disability. Therefore, no compensation can be granted towards loss of future earnings due to disability because the claimant continued in the same job with the same salary.
Hence, the claimant is not entitled for compensation towards loss of future earnings due to disability; but she is entitled for compensation towards loss of amenities.
With the afore-stated findings, the High Court then modified the afore-stated compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to Rs 4,14,229 and held that since the claimant had 20% contribution towards her accident, therefore, she is entitled to only 80% of the compensation so determined i.e., Rs 3,31,383 only.
[ICICI Lombard Co. Ltd. v. Harshitha B., 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 6, decided on 02-01-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For appellant- B.C Shivanne Gowda, Advocate
For respondents/claimants- D.S. Sridhar, Advocate for R1
