As Motorcycle Tried To Overtake Bus With An Oncoming Lorry, Karnataka HC Upholds 70% Bus Liability And Raises Pillion Rider’s Award To Rs 2.13 Lakh

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing 70% of the liability on the Corporation.

The court held

The Corporation’s appeal was dismissed, and Hanumantha’s appeal was allowed in part.

It also directed

The total award was enhanced from ₹1,90,137 to ₹2,13,387, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the petition until payment.

The Corporation was directed to deposit the amount corresponding to its 70% share, with accrued interest, within six weeks of receiving the certified judgment.

01Facts

On 13 January 2018, Hanumantha was injured while travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle involved in a collision with a NEKRTC bus.

p. 4

The motorcycle was carrying three persons, and its rider attempted to overtake the bus as a lorry approached from the opposite direction.

pp. 10–11

The police filed a charge sheet against both the motorcycle rider and the bus driver.

pp. 4, 10–11

The Tribunal awarded Hanumantha ₹1,90,137, attributing 70% of the negligence to the bus driver and 30% to the motorcycle rider.

p. 7

Hanumantha appealed for enhancement, while the Corporation appealed against the apportionment of liability.

p. 4, 7

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing 70% of the liability on the Corporation.

p. 9

ii.Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required modification.

p. 9

03Law Applied

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal to the High Court from an award of a Claims Tribunal.

pp. 2–3

The Court assessed the parties’ negligence from the evidence and considered compensation under the heads of future income, pain and suffering, loss of income during treatment, medical expenses, loss of amenities, and attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges.

pp. 12–15

The judgment cites no precedent and does not identify any further statutory provision as the basis for its compensation assessment.

pp. 9–15

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court found that the motorcycle rider attempted to overtake without adequate care when a lorry was approaching, while the bus driver, having seen the motorcycle and its request to overtake, failed to slow down.

pp. 11–13

It therefore upheld the Tribunal’s apportionment of 70% negligence to the bus and 30% to the motorcycle rider.

pp. 13–14

On compensation, the Court held that the Tribunal’s assessment of 4% disability and its award for future income did not warrant interference; however, it increased pain-and-suffering compensation from ₹10,000 to ₹25,000 and awarded ₹20,000 for two months’ loss of income during recovery.

pp. 14–15

It left the other awarded heads unchanged.

pp. 14–15

05Holding

The Corporation’s appeal was dismissed, and Hanumantha’s appeal was allowed in part.

p. 16

The total award was enhanced from ₹1,90,137 to ₹2,13,387, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the petition until payment.

pp. 15–16

The Corporation was directed to deposit the amount corresponding to its 70% share, with accrued interest, within six weeks of receiving the certified judgment.

p. 16

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF