In a recent judgment, the Karnataka High Court emphasized that while failing to wear a helmet constitutes contributory negligence, it does not justify a significant reduction in the compensation awarded to a victim of a road accident. The court enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimant, Mr. Sadath Ali Khan, in the case of Sadath Ali Khan vs. Noor Ahmed Sayeed & Anr., highlighting the principle of “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Background of the Case
The case, registered as Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 3459 of 2021, involved an accident that occurred on March 5, 2016. Mr. Sadath Ali Khan, a 41-year-old manufacturer of wooden toys, was riding his motorcycle on the Bengaluru-Mysuru National Highway when a car, driven by Mr. Noor Ahmed Sayeed, struck him from behind. The accident resulted in significant injuries, including a skull fracture, which led to Mr. Khan undergoing multiple surgeries and incurring substantial medical expenses.
The original judgment by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, had awarded Mr. Khan a compensation of Rs. 5,61,600. Dissatisfied with this amount, Mr. Khan, represented by Advocate Raju S., sought an enhancement of the compensation on the grounds that the amount awarded did not adequately cover his losses and suffering.
Legal Issues and Arguments
The primary legal issue in this case revolved around the extent to which Mr. Khan’s failure to wear a helmet contributed to the severity of his injuries and whether this negligence should impact the compensation awarded to him. The respondents, including the insurance company represented by Advocate B. Pradeep, argued that Mr. Khan’s non-compliance with Section 129(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which mandates wearing a helmet, was a significant factor in the injuries he sustained and, thus, should reduce his compensation.
However, the court, comprising Justice K. Somashekar and Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, rejected this argument. The judges acknowledged that while not wearing a helmet could be considered contributory negligence, it should not lead to a substantial decrease in compensation. They emphasized that the primary focus should remain on the respondent’s negligence in causing the accident.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The High Court observed that contributory negligence does not negate the right to receive compensation but may only warrant a minor reduction in the amount. The judgment highlighted that reducing compensation solely based on the failure to wear a helmet would be disproportionate, especially since the law prescribes a relatively minor penalty for this offense.
The court noted, “The principle of ‘just compensation’ requires that while contributory negligence can be a factor in determining the amount of compensation, it should not result in an unjust reduction. The compensation must be fair and reasonable, reflecting the actual losses and the nature of injuries sustained.”
Also Read
Consequently, the High Court increased the compensation awarded to Mr. Khan to Rs. 6,80,200, along with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of the petition until the deposit of the amount. The insurance company, Universal Sampoo General Insurance Co. Ltd., was ordered to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,02,840 within six weeks.
