T.O. ANTONY versus KARVARNAN & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 291 · Decided: 01-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 291. 
T.O. ANTONY 
v. 
KARVARNAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 1, 2008 
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.) 
Motor Accident Claim: 
A 
B 
Contributory Negligence and Composite Negligence - , 
Meaning of and distinction between ....: Explained - Whefe ' C 
injured is himself partly liable, principle of 'composite 
negligence' will not apply nor can there be an automatic 
inference that the negligence was 50:50, as was wrongly 
assumed in instant case - On facts, claimant being partly 
responsible for accident, responsibility at 25% is fixed on him D 
and 75% on respondent - Special damages fixed by High 
Court not interfered with - However, quantum of compensation 
;.- . 
arrived at by High Court, being reasonable, does not call for 
any increase - Extent of contributory negligence on part of 
claimant being only 25% and not 50%, compensation reduced E 
only to 25% and not 50% - Claimant would be entitled to 
additional compensation accordingly with 9% interest from 
date of petition till date of realization. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Contributory negligence' and 'composite negligence' -
F 
Meaning of in the context of motor accident claim - Explained. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1082 
of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2005 of G 
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in MFA No. 153411998 
Anitha Shenoy and Naveen R. Nath for the Appellant. 
Pradyot Kumar Chakravarty for the Respondents. 
291 
H 
4--
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. 1. Leave granted. Heard 
learned counsel for the parties. 
2. The appellant was a driver working with the Kerala State 
8 
Road Transport Corporation. On the date of the accident, he 
was driving the KSRTC bus (KL 15/1074) from Palakkad to 
~ 
Trichur. When his bus was near Kannanoor a private bus (KL 
9A-3456) driven by the first respondent (belonging to second 
respondent, and insured with third respondent) came from the 
c . opposite side and there was a head-on collusion. As a res.ult 
the appellant sustained injuries including fracture of right femur. 
He filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 
Palakkad claiming Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. By judg.ment 
and award dated 13.5.1998 the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal 
D allowed the claim petition in part. The Tribunal held that the 
accident occurred due to the composite negligence of drivers . 
of both vehicles and it could not be said that the accident 
occurred solely due to the negligence of tbe first respondent. 
The Tribunal further held that as the accident occurred due to 
E contributory and composite negligence .of the drivers of both 
the vehicles, the liabiHty should be fifty-fifty (that is 50% each). 
The tribunal determined the compensation as Rs. 78,500/-. In 
view of its decision that the appellant was responsible for the 
accident, to an extent of 50%, it deducted 50% therefrom for 
F appellant's negligence, and awarded Rs.39,250/- to the 
appellant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date 
of petition till date of realization, and directed the third 
respondent (Insurer) to pay the said amount. 
G 
3. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant filed an 
appeal before the High Court. The High Court by judgment dated 
3.3.2005 allowed the appeal in part. The High Court did n~t 
) 
disturb the finding regarding negligence. It however incre~sed 
the compensation and directed payment of an additional 
. 
H compensation of Rs.39,900/- to the appellant with interest at 
I 
-j.. 
T.O. ANTONY v. KARVARNAN & ORS. 
293 
---<- r. 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.] 
9% P.A. from date of petition till date of payment. Not being A 
satisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has 
filed this appeal by way of Special Leave. 
4. The appellant contended that at the time of the accident, 
he was driving his bus at a moderate speed in a careful manner B 
and his bus was traveling from East to West on the correct side 
)-
.. 
of the road. According to him the private bus, being driven by 
the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came from 
the opposite side, went to the wrong side of the road and dashed 
• 
against his bus. He contended that The Tribunal and High Court 
ought to have held that the first respondent was solely responsible .C 
for the accident, and consequently, awarded the compensation 
-I 
without any deduction.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.