Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

M.F.A Nos. 575 to 580, 630, 217 to 221, 277 to 280 and 509 of 1983 and 1678 of 1982

Advocates

For the Appellant: R.S. Chakrabhavi, V. Markande Gowda, Advocates.

Judges

G.N Sabhahit
S.R Rajasekharamurthy, JJ.

Acts

section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Motor Accidents Claims Appeals)

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals arise from a common judgment and awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, dated 19.6.1982, in M.V.C. Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 144 and 175 of 1979. On 11.4.1979 at about 9:30 p.m., a tourist bus (No. MED 2844) and a goods vehicle/truck (No. MYD 2462) collided on the Bangalore–Mysore road near Kanmanike village. Seven persons travelling in the truck died. The legal heirs of the deceased instituted seven claim petitions (M.V.C. Nos. 91–96 and 175 of 1979) claiming compensation. M.V.C. No. 144 of 1979 was filed by the truck owner claiming damage to the truck. Respondents in the proceedings included the owners, drivers and insurers of the bus and the truck.

The Tribunal held that the accident resulted from composite negligence of both drivers and apportioned liability 25% to the bus and 75% to the truck, awarding compensation in the various M.V.C. matters. The truck-owner appealed the apportionment and the quantum (several M.F.A.s were filed by claimants, bus-owner and truck-owner as listed in the opinion). These appeals were before the High Court for review.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident resulted from composite negligence by both drivers and that blameworthiness was in the ratio of 25% (bus driver) and 75% (truck driver)?
Whether the compensation awarded in each case is just and proper?
Whether liability should have been saddled jointly and severally on the respondents since the accident resulted from composite negligence?
What is the liability of the insurance company?

Arguments of the Parties

Owner/Driver of the Truck

Contended that negligence was not 75% on his part and 25% on the bus; the proper apportionment should have been 50%–50%.
Contended that the compensation awarded for damage to the truck was on the lower side.

Owner/Driver of the Bus

Contended that the entire negligence was on the part of the truck driver and that the bus owner/driver should not have been held liable to any extent.
Challenged the apportionment as not legal and proper.

Claimant-Appellants (through their counsel)

Submitted that since the accident resulted from composite negligence, the Tribunal need not apportion liability and all parties should have been made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
Contended that the compensation awarded in each case was insufficient and should have been higher.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
K. Gopalakrishnan v. Sankara Narayanan, 1969 ACJ 34 (Madras)	Held that it is not necessary to apportion negligence in cases of composite negligence.	The Court relied on this precedent to support the proposition that apportionment by the Tribunal was unnecessary in composite negligence and that joint and several liability was appropriate.
Golak Chandra Das v. Kousalya Nayak, 1978 ACJ 48 (Orissa)	Held there was no justification for apportioning compensation where there was composite negligence; both tort-feasors were jointly and severally liable for the whole loss.	The Court cited this case to reinforce the legal position against apportionment and in favour of joint-and-several liability.
Karunakar Pradhan v. Sarojini Mishra, 1980 ACJ 121 (Orissa)	Reiterated the position that apportionment is unnecessary in composite negligence.	Used to support the Court's conclusion that the Tribunal should not have apportioned liability but should have fastened joint-and-several liability.
A. Shivarudrappa v. General Manager, Mysore Road Transport Corporation, 1973 ACJ 302 (Mysore)	Held that in cases of composite negligence apportionment of liability is not necessary.	Reinforced the legal position adopted by the Court to modify the Tribunal's apportionment into joint-and-several liability.
K.V. Narasappa v. Kamalamma, 1969 ACJ 127 (Mysore)	Expressed a similar position that apportionment is not required in composite negligence cases.	Cited as additional authority supporting the Court's decision to require joint-and-several liability rather than apportioned liability.
Motor Owner's Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi, 1981 ACJ 507 (SC)	Authority interpreting insurer's liability in the context of motor accident compensation (as relied on by the High Court in fixing insurer's obligations).	The Court fixed the liability of the insurer to pay compensation (under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act) and stated that the insurer is at liberty to seek and recover contribution from concerned parties, relying on this Supreme Court decision.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded through the following analytical steps, based solely on the opinion's content:

Assessment of Evidence and Factual Finding:
The Tribunal had examined eyewitnesses (PWs 1, 11 and DW 1) and noted that oral evidence in split-second accidents requires cautious scrutiny and corroboration by circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence showed damage to the left front side of the truck and the right front of the bus, which indicated the truck had gone off the road onto the wrong side and collided with the bus. On this factual basis the Tribunal apportioned responsibility 75% to the truck driver and 25% to the bus driver. The High Court stated it had "no reason to differ" from the Tribunal's factual conclusion about the greater liability of the truck driver.
Review of Quantum of Compensation:
The Court reviewed the awards in each M.V.C. matter (Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 175 and 144 of 1979). For each award the Court recited the Tribunal's methodology—income assessment, deductions for personal expenses, multipliers for working life, deductions for lump sum/uncertainties where appropriate, and additions for loss to the estate, loss of consortium, and funeral/incidental expenses—and concluded that the Tribunal's calculated figures were just and proper. Examples include:
- M.V.C. No. 91 — Tribunal fixed monthly contribution at Rs. 80 (Rs. 960 yearly), 10 working years, gross dependency Rs. 9,600, deduction Rs. 1,000, and additions leading to total Rs. 16,000; Court upheld this as just and proper.
- M.V.C. No. 92 — Gross loss of dependency Rs. 18,000, deduction 15%, net Rs. 15,300 plus other heads, total Rs. 25,300; upheld.
- M.V.C. No. 93 — Gross loss Rs. 21,600, deduction 15%, net Rs. 18,360 plus other heads, total Rs. 26,360; upheld.
- M.V.C. No. 94 — Working life taken as 5 years, loss of dependency Rs. 7,200, plus other heads, total Rs. 14,700; upheld.
- M.V.C. No. 95 — Compensation Rs. 8,000 (death of a 9-year-old); Court saw no reason to interfere.
- M.V.C. No. 96 — Dependency calculations leading to rounded award Rs. 10,500; upheld.
- M.V.C. No. 175 — Tribunal's computations led to Rs. 18,000 with costs and interest; upheld.
- M.V.C. No. 144 — Truck owner claimed Rs. 40,800; Tribunal fixed damages at Rs. 15,000 based on documents and cross-examination; Court found this figure just and proper.
Legal Principle on Apportionment and Application:
The Court identified authoritative precedents establishing that in cases of composite negligence it is not necessary to apportion liability among joint tort-feasors; instead, they may be held jointly and severally liable for the whole loss. After citing multiple High Court authorities and K. Gopalakrishnan (Madras), the Court concluded that the Tribunal ought not to have apportioned liability between the bus and truck owners/ drivers and the insurer. Accordingly, the Court modified the Tribunal's awards to impose joint-and-several liability on the respondents.
Insurance Company's Liability:
Relying on Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act and on the Supreme Court decision in Motor Owner's Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi (1981 ACJ 507 (SC)), the Court directed that the insurance company shall pay the compensation awarded and is at liberty to seek and recover contribution from the concerned parties. Thus, the Court fixed insurer's liability consistent with the cited authority and statutory provision.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: All the M.F.As are partly allowed, except M.F.A No. 221 of 1983 which is dismissed; the Tribunal's apportionment of liability is modified and the respondents are made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation; the insurer is directed under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act to pay the compensation and may recover contribution from the concerned parties.

Direct consequences for the parties (as stated in the opinion):

The Tribunal's factual findings as to causation and the specific quantum awards in each M.V.C. matter are upheld as just and proper; the Court did not interfere with the amounts awarded in each case.
The Tribunal's apportionment (25% bus / 75% truck) is set aside to the extent that liability must be imposed jointly and severally on the respondents (i.e., claimants may recover the awarded compensation from any or all responsible respondents jointly and severally).
The insurance company is ordered to pay the awards (under Section 110-B) and is entitled to seek contribution from other liable parties, pursuant to the Supreme Court authority cited.
All appeals are partly allowed except M.F.A No. 221 of 1983 which is dismissed; no costs of these appeals were awarded.

Broader precedent-setting: The opinion applies existing precedents to the facts and modifies the Tribunal's orders accordingly. The Court's decision rests on the authorities cited rather than announcing a novel legal principle; the opinion does not state that it sets a new precedent beyond applying the cited law.

Order: The opinion concludes with the direction modifying the awards for joint-and-several liability and with the insurer's payment obligation under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act; order accordingly.

Show full summary ...

Lakshmamma And Others v. C. Das And Others

Sabhahit, J.:— These appeals arise out of a common judgment and awards made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in M.V.C Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 144 and 175 of 1979, dated 19.6.1982

2. The brief facts are these: A tourist bus No. MED 2844 and a goods vehicle bearing No. MYD 2462 were involved in an accident that occurred on 11.4.1979 at about 9.30 p.m on Bangalore-Mysore road near Kanmanike village. The bus was coming from Mysore side whereas the truck was going towards Mysore side. They collided on the road as the result of which 7 persons travelling in the truck died. The legal heirs of the deceased persons instituted 7 claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal at M.V.C Nos. 91 to 96 and 175 of 1979 claiming compensation from respondents.

3. M.V.C No. 144 of 1979 is by the truck owner. He claimed compensation for damage to the truck. The respondents are owner, driver and insurer of the bus and also of the truck.

4. The owner and driver of the truck contended that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus in question whereas the owner and driver of the bus contended that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the truck in question.

5. The Tribunal, appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident was the result of composite negligence of both the driver of the bus as well as of the driver of the truck and in that view, the Tribunal apportioned the liability at the rate of 25% and 75% on the bus and truck respectively, and awarded compensation in M.V.C Nos. 91 to 96 and 175 of 1979. In the case of M.V.C No. 144 of 1979, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the owner of the truck for the damage caused to the truck along with interest and costs. Aggrieved by the said awards, the claimants have come up in appeals in M.F.A Nos. 577, 578, 575, 583, 579, 630 and 576 of 1983. The owner of the bus has instituted M.F.A Nos. 509, 278, 279, 277 and 280 of 1983 and the owner of the truck has instituted M.F.A Nos. 1678 of 1982, 217, 219, 218, 221, 220 of 1983.

6. The owner of the truck contended that the negligence was not in the proportion of 75% on his part and merely 25% on the part of the bus owner. It should have been apportioned at 50% and 50%. He further contended that the compensation awarded for damage to the truck were on the lower side.

7. The owner of the bus contended that the entire negligence was on the part of the truck driver and that he should not have been held liable to any extent for causing the accident. He further submitted that the apportionment of the compensation made between the bus owner and the truck owner was not legal and proper.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants submitted that since the accident was the result of composite negligence, there was no need for the Tribunal to apportion the liability and that all the parties concerned should have been made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. He also submitted that the compensation awarded in each case was not just and proper. According to him, it should have been more.

9. The points, therefore, that arise for our consideration in these appeals are:

(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident was the result of composite negligence on the part of the driver of the bus as well as the driver of the truck and that the blameworthiness was in the ratio of 25% on the bus driver and 75% on the part of the truck driver?

(2) Whether the compensation awarded in each case is just and proper?

(3) Whether the liability should have been saddled jointly and severally on the respondents since the accident was the result of composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles?

(4) What is the liability of the insurance company?

10. The eye-witnesses examined are PWs 1, 11 and DW 1. The Tribunal has rightly pointed out that the oral evidence in such a case of accident which happens in a split second should be scrutinised and should be appreciated in the light of the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence in the present case shows that the left front side of the truck was damaged and the right front side of the bus was damaged. That clearly shows that the truck went off the road on its wrong side and hit the bus. Otherwise, there could not be damage to the front side of the truck. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held on appreciating the evidence on record that there is greater liability on the truck driver in causing the accident and it is, in that view it fixed the liability in the proportion of 75% on the truck driver and 25% on the part of the bus driver. We have no reason to differ.

11. That leads us to the quantum of compensation. We were taken through the several awards made by the learned member of the Tribunal and reasons advanced by him.

12. In M.V.C No. 91 of 1979, deceased was Ramakrishna Rao. He was an agricultural labourer. The Tribunal has taken his earning at Rs. 5 to 6 per day. He was aged about 45 years, though his age is shown as 50 years in the post mortem report at Exh. P-3. The Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased at 50 years and having regard to the income of Ramakrishna Rao, the deceased, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly contribution to the family at Rs. 80/- which amounts to Rs. 960/- annually. The Tribunal has taken his working years as 10 and fixed the total loss of dependency at Rs. 9,600/-. It has deducted Rs. 1,000/- for lump sum payment and uncertainties of life, it has fixed the total loss of dependency at Rs. 8,600/-. The Tribunal has added Rs. 5,000/- towards loss to the estate of the deceased, Rs. 2,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 400/- towards incidental and funeral expenses. Together, therefore, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 16,000/- as total compensation. It cannot be said that the figure arrived at by the Tribunal is not just and proper. Hence, we are satisfied with the compensation given by the Tribunal as just and proper.

13. In M.V.C No. 92 of 1979, PW 4 Jayamma is the widow of the deceased and the second claimant is the mother, claimants 3 to 5 are the minor children of the deceased Ramakrishnappa. The deceased was an agriculturist and he was running a sugar-cane crusher. His income is taken at Rs. 2,000/- per year by the Tribunal. Rs. 800/- is deducted towards personal expenses and multiplying the balance for about 15 working years, the Tribunal has arrived at gross loss of dependency at Rs. 18,000/-. Out of this 15% is deducted towards uncertainties of life and lump sum payment, it fixed the net loss of dependency at Rs. 15,300/-. To this, it has added Rs. 4,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss to the estate of the deceased and Rs. 1,000/- towards funeral and incidental expenses. Together, therefore, the total compensation arrived at Rs. 25,300/- by the Tribunal. It cannot be said that the method adopted by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded are not just and proper. We hold it just and proper.

14. In M.V.C No. 93 of 1979, PW 5 Lakshmamma is the widow of the deceased Venkatachaliah. He was aged 41 years at the time of his death by the accident, according to the claimants. But, post mortem report shows his age as 38 years. The Tribunal fixed his age at 40 years. He was an agriculturist and petty merchant. His income is taken at Rs. 6 per day and the gross loss of income for 15 years is calculated at Rs. 21,600/-. Deducting 15% towards lump sum payment and uncertainties of life the Tribunal fixed the loss of dependency at Rs. 18,360/-. To this, it added Rs. 5,000/- towards loss to the estate of the deceased, Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of consortium. Together, therefore, Rs. 26,360/- is fixed as total loss of compensation. It cannot be said that the compensation so awarded is not just and proper. We hold that it is just and proper.

15. In M.V.C No. 94 of 1979, the deceased Dasegowda was aged 55 years according to the claimants at the time of his death by the accident. PW 6 Venkatamma is the widow of the deceased. The age of the deceased is shown in the post mortem report as 55 years. He was working in his lands. The loss of dependency is fixed at Rs. 7,200/- taking his working life as 5 into consideration. In view of the fact that only 5 years are taken, there is no further deduction for uncertainties of life and lump sum payment. In addition to this, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 500/- towards incidental and funeral expenses. Together, therefore, it awarded Rs. 14,700/- (sic) as total compensation. The amounts arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper. We have no reason to interfere.

16. In M.V.C No. 95 of 1979, PW 7 Shivananjappa, the petitioner is the father of the deceased boy Nanjappa. He was aged 9 years at the time of the death by the accident. The compensation of Rs. 8,000/- is awarded in this case. We have no reason to interfere.

17. In M.V.C No. 96 of 1979, the deceased was aged 35 years according to the claimants. He was earning Rs. 3 to 4 per day as a coolie. He was working whenever he got work. The Tribunal, on an average, has taken his earning at Rs. 3/- per day and deducting Rs. 45/- towards his personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency is fixed at Rs. 45/- which amounts to Rs. 540/- per year and on that basis using the multiplier 12, the Tribunal has fixed the total loss of dependency at Rs. 6,480/- and has rounded it off to Rs. 6,500/-. It has also awarded Rs. 4,000/- towards loss to the estate of the deceased. Together, therefore, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,500/- as compensation. It cannot be said that the figure arrived at by the Tribunal is not just and proper.

18. In M.V.C No. 175 of 1979, the petitioner, PW 3, is the widow of Anthappa alias Govindappa. He was aged 35 years at the time of the accident. He was working as a coolie. In the post mortem report at Exh. P-9 the age of the deceased is shown as 40 years. He was earning Rs. 10 to 15 per day according to the claimants. The Tribunal has taken his daily earning at Rs. 10/- and deducting Rs. 4/- for the personal expenses and Rs. 4/- for his fooding has fixed Rs. 2/- as loss of dependency. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 60/- per month and Rs. 720/- per year and taking his working life at 15, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 10,800/-. Deducting Rs. 1,000/- for uncertainties of life and lump sum payment, the Tribunal arrived at net loss of dependency at Rs. 9,800/-. In addition to this, it has awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss to the estate of the deceased, Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 200/- for incidental expenses. Together, therefore, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 18,000/- as compensation with costs and interest. It cannot be said that the figure arrived at by the Tribunal is not just and proper.

19. In M.V.C No. 144 of 1979, the petitioner is the owner of the truck. The petitioner, the lorry owner claimed Rs. 40,800/- towards damage to the truck. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the documents produced in the case, and observing the fact that there is no evidence about the value of the truck at the time of the accident, has fixed the damages at Rs. 15,000/- as suggested by the other side in the cross-examination. The figure arrived at by the Tribunal, in our considered view, is just and proper. We have no reason to interfere.

20. Thus we find, that the compensation awarded in each case is just and proper.

21. It is settled principle of law in the case K. Gopalakrishnan v. Sankara Narayanan, 1969 ACJ 34 (Madras), wherein it is clearly held that it is not necessary to apportion the negligence in the case of composite negligence. In the case Golak Chandra Das v. Kousalya Nayak, 1978 ACJ 48 (Orissa), the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack has held that there is no justification for the Tribunal to apportion the compensation and fix the liability on the two vehicles as it was a case of composite negligence and both were jointly and severally liable for the whole loss. Similarly, in the case Karunakar Pradhan v. Sarojini Mishra, 1980 ACJ 121 (Orissa), his Lordship of Orissa High Court has reiterated the same position of law. In A. Shivarudrappa v. General Manager, Mysore Road Transport Corporation, 1973 ACJ 302 (Mysore), the High Court of Mysore has held that in the case of composite negligence, it is not necessary to apportion the liability. Similar position is reiterated in the case K.V Narasappa v. Kamalamma, 1969 ACJ 127 (Mysore).

22. In the circumstances, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal should not have apportioned the liability among the various joint tort-feasors and the insurance company. It should have awarded the compensation against the respondents jointly and severally. We accordingly direct the modifications of the awards made.

23. In the result, therefore, all the M.F.As are partly allowed except in the case of M.F.A No. 221 of 1983 which appeal stands dismissed. No costs of these appeals. Under section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, we direct that the insurance company shall pay the compensation awarded and it is at liberty to seek and recover the contribution from the concerned. The liability of the insurer is fixed in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Motor Owner's Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi, 1981 ACJ 507 (SC).

24. Order accordingly.

Lakshmamma And Others v. C. Das And Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Motor Accidents Claims Appeals)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Owner/Driver of the Truck

Owner/Driver of the Bus

Claimant-Appellants (through their counsel)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Lakshmamma And Others v. C. Das And Others

Comments