KOOSAPPA POOJARI Vs. K SADABBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LORD du Parcq has pointed out that the "underlying principle of the law of the highway is that all those lawfully using the highway must show mutual respect and forbearance". Hence, the duty of a person, who drives or rides a vehicle on the highway, is to use reasonable care to avoid causing damage to persons, vehicles or property of any kind on or adjoining the highway. Urbanisation with auto revolution is not an unmixed good. Accidents are a few amongst other evil effects of it. This preface is required as the question involved in this appeal is regarding contributory negligence of the claimant.

(2.) THE genesis of the claimant's case is that he was aged about 58 years at the time of accident and was working as Head worker at Mangalore Port Trust. On the fateful day, i. e. , on 24. 11. 1997 when he was standing by the side of the road in order to cross and go to the other side, a lorry bearing registration No. KA 19-5259 came from Udupi side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner on its wrong side and hit him. Due to the accident he sustained grievous injuries, namely, fracture of right femur, fracture of right acetabulum. He was shifted immediately to Fr. Muller Hospital, Mangalore and he was admitted as an inpatient. He was operated upon for the said injuries with an insertion of a rod on 5. 12. 1997 and was discharged on 23. 12. 97 with an advice that he should be in the bed for three months more. It is his further case that the resultant effect of the accident is that he is unable to walk and do his normal duties. A claim petition was laid seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 for the injuries suffered by him and also under various heads, namely, the future expenses, loss of income, permanent disability, disfiguration, towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

(3.) THE said claim petition was resisted, mainly, by the insurance company, inter alia, contending that the claimant did not spend Rs. 25,000 for treatment and expenses. They further denied their liability and they also further denied that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question. Their main defence, as could be seen from the statement of objections filed before the Tribunal, was that the claimant himself contributed towards the accident. Thus, the fault lay at the threshold of the claimant as he has not taken proper and due care while crossing the road. In the alternate they pleaded that if the Tribunal were to hold that the claimant was not at fault, he should be held responsible and certain amount of negligence must also be attributed to him.