1996 (11) TMI 484 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court increases compensation, apportions negligence, rejects insurance challenge.

Shankar Appayya Govakar Versus Nurudappa Basappa Mali and Ors.

The High Court partially allowed the appeal, increasing compensation to Rs. 50,000 with 9% interest. It upheld the Tribunal's decision attributing 50% ... - Issues Involved:1. Negligence and liability for the accident.2. Quantum of compensation awarded.3. Validity of the Tribunal's findings and the right to challenge them without filing a cross-objection or appeal.Detailed Analysis:1. Negligence and Liability for the Accident:The Tribunal framed the issues to determine whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus driver or the scooter rider. The Tribunal concluded that the accident was due to the composite negligence of both the KSRTC bus driver and the scooter rider, attributing 50% liability to each. The claimant suffered injuries due to the accident, and the Tribunal directed respondents 1 to 3 (KSRTC and its driver) and respondents 4 and 5 (scooter rider and the insurance company) to share the liability equally.The respondents contested the Tribunal's findings, with the KSRTC arguing that the accident was solely due to the scooter rider's negligence. The insurance company (respondent 5) contended that the scooter rider held a learner's license, which imposed a higher duty of care on the KSRTC bus driver. However, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of 50% negligence on both parties, noting that neither respondent 4 nor 5 had filed an appeal or cross-objection to challenge this finding.2. Quantum of Compensation Awarded:The claimant appealed against the Tribunal's award of Rs. 16,000 as global compensation, arguing it was insufficient for the injuries and disabilities suffered. The claimant's counsel highlighted the severe injuries, including a 40% disability in the right lower limb, which affected the claimant's ability to work and enjoy normal life.The High Court reviewed the medical evidence and the claimant's testimony, confirming the severity of the injuries and the resultant disability. The Court found the Tribunal's compensation inadequate and recalculated the damages. The Court awarded Rs. 45,000 as general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of earning capacity, and Rs. 5,000 as special damages for medical expenses, totaling Rs. 50,000. The Court also increased the interest rate on the unpaid amount to 9% per annum.3. Validity of the Tribunal's Findings and the Right to Challenge Them Without Filing a Cross-Objection or Appeal:Respondent 5 (the insurance company) attempted to challenge the Tribunal's finding of 50% negligence on the scooter rider without filing a cross-objection or appeal. The High Court examined the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows a respondent to support the decree on grounds decided against them but does not permit challenging the decree without filing a cross-objection or appeal.The Court emphasized that challenging the finding of negligence would effectively challenge the decree, which is not permissible without a cross-objection or appeal. The Court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Choudhary Sahu (Dead) By LRs. v. State of Bihar, which clarified that a respondent could not challenge a decree without filing a cross-objection. The Court concluded that respondent 5's attempt to challenge the finding was an indirect way of attacking the decree, which could not be allowed.Conclusion:The High Court partly allowed the appeal, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 50,000 with 9% interest on the unpaid amount. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of 50% negligence on both the KSRTC bus driver and the scooter rider, rejecting the insurance company's challenge due to the absence of a cross-objection or appeal. The costs of the appeal were to be borne proportionately by all parties, with the Tribunal's costs recoverable from the respondents in the indicated proportion.