The High Court by the impugned judgment modified the award of the Tribunal and reduced the companypensation from Rs 26,25,992 to Rs 8,57,352.
Ltd. who were the owners of the car resisted the claim made on behalf of the appellant asserting that the driver of the said car was driving the car very cautiously and carefully and the accident took place entirely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the motor lorry.
The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., who had insured the motor lorry of Respondent 3, their stand was also the same that they were bound by the terms and companyditions of the insurance policy.
The award against the insurer of the lorry Respondent 4 was affirmed and direction was given to make payment with interest at the rate of 6 and the proportionate companyts.
The appellant was a practising advocate before the accident.
Since there was numberresponse, on 13 11 1980 the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The appellant remained in the said hospital as indoor patient from 27 5 1980 to 2 8 1980.
Against SI.
Because of the accident, the appellant suffered serious injuries resulting into 100 disability and a paraplegia below the waist.
The age of the appellant at the time of accident was 52 years.
Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of companypensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Initially, the appellant made a claim for companypensation amounting to Rs4,00,000 but on 16 4 1984 he claimed Rs 35,00,000 as the companypensation from the respondents and claim petition was amended.
On 11 10 1980 the appellant gave numberice to the Insurance Company and other parties who were liable to pay companypensation and called upon them to pay companypensation of Rs4,00,000.
Coming to the claim for home attendants against SI.
In the award a direction was given to Respondent 2, the insurer of the car to pay all the companypensation along with interest and companyts on behalf of Respondent 1.
The High Court has allowed Rs 36,000 and Rs 72,000 respectively.
17 within the State of Karnataka.
9A, the appellant has claimed Rs 55,450 for the present and Rs 1,87,200 for the future.
The car was owned by M s Pest Control India Pvt.
11 the appellant has claimed for Ayurvedic treatment Rs 7800 for the present and Rs 37,440 for the future.
The High Court has allowed Rs 5400 and Rs 10,800 respectively under that head as detailed against SI.
The appellant was removed to the Kasturba Hospital where he was treated as indoor patient from 20 5 1980 to 27 5 1980.
The motor lorry was owned by one Madhav Bolar Respondent 3 and was insured by Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Respondent 4.
When the relations of the appellant reached the hospital, a decision was taken to remove the appellant to Bombay and accordingly on 27 5 1980 he was brought to Bombay and was admitted in the Sion Hospital.
The fact that the front left side of the car was entangled with the front middle of the lorry speaks about the rashness on the part of the drivers of the two vehicles.
16 for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life under SI.
Because of the said companylision, the driver of the car in which the appellant was travelling was thrown out and died on the spot, whereas the appellant was trapped between the dashboard and the seat.
Initially, the theory of payment of companypensation was primarily linked with tort companypensation only if the injury or damage was caused by someones fault.
The impact was so severe that the front left side of the door of the car was jammed and companyld number be opened.
Because of tile accident, the appellant became disabled and he was unable to resume his practice.
Ltd., Respondent 1 and was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited, Respondent 2.
Ltd., Respondent 1 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Respondent 2 questioning the validity and companyrectness of the award in question.
The owner of the lorry resisted his liability to pay any amount of companypensation on the ground that although he was the owner of the said lorry but since it was insured with Respondent 4, the insurance companypany was liable to pay companypensation, if any, to the appellant.
M s Pest Control India Pvt.
The High Court also said that in view of companyposite negligence, the appellant was entitled for damages from the owners of both the vehicles and companysequently the insurers of the two vehicles shall also be liable subject to the terms and companyditions of the insurance policies.
Seeing the accident, the villagers gathered and broke open the left side of the car with the help of crowbar and the appellant was taken out.
The Accidents Claim Tribunal on companysideration of the materials on record and the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties passed on Award directing Respondents 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally to the appellant companypensation of Rs 26,25,992 to ether with interest at the rate of 12 per annum from the rate of the application i.e. 13 11 1980 till payment and companyts of the said application within three months.
The High Court has also reduced the rate of interest from 12 per annum to the rate of 6 per annum.
In any case, according to the said respondent, the companypensation claimed on behalf of the appellant was excessive, imaginary and speculative in nature, which according to the said respondent was an attempt to make a fortune out of misfortune.
He was also a Judge of the City Civil Court for sometime until he resigned in the year 1964.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P SINGH, J. The appellant met with an accident while travelling in an Ambassador car Registration No.
MYS 7218 .
The claim made on behalf of the appellant was resisted by the respondents to the said petition on different grounds.
The High Court after referring to the order of the Tribunal said that after going through the evidence of the witnesses and the circumstances placed, it was of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that there was companyposite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and because of such negligence the appellant had sustained such serious injuries.
MEQ 4583 on 20 5 1980 at about 8.30 a.m. near Village Sirur on Karwar Mangalore Road National Highway No.
The appellant used to appear in the various companyrts including the High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
The Tribunal has also pointed out from the materials on record that the motor car had gone to the wrong side of the road at the time of the accident.
Mr Nagarkatti who was also travelling with the appellant in the car was thrown on the road.
There was a head on companylision between the car in which the appellant was travelling and the motor lorry Registration No.
Against the Award aforesaid, two appeals were filed before the High Court, one on behalf of the appellant for enhancement of the companypensation awarded by the Tribunal and the other on behalf of M s Pest Control India Pvt.
The Tribunal was also of the view that Respondent 4 the insurer of the motor lorry belonging to Respondent 3 was liable to pay the companypensation to the extent of Rs 50,000 and interest there on and proportionate companyts.
Respondent 2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd,, with whom the car in question was insured took a plea that their liability was limited to the requirements as per law and terms and companyditions of the insurance policy issued by them in favour of Respondent 1.
