APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES IN CASES OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Children in Custody of Adults:
The doctrine of identification was at one time applied in case of young people in cost of an adult, and, as such, if a child, who used to be incapable of taking care of himself, was in the custody of some grownup and was once injured due to the Negligence of the defendant and additionally the adult in whose custody he was, he could be met with the defense of Contributory Negligence as he used to be recognized with the adult having his custody. The doctrine of identification has been viewed to be overruled even in the case of children in the custody of adults. For Example, in Oliver v. Birmingham and Midland omnibus Co., an infant of four years used to be in the care of his grandfather and was once crossing a road along with him. Suddenly, the defendant’s omnibus had injured the infant. He was now not seen with his grandfather and in spite of the Contributory Negligence on the part of the grandfather; the child was now entitled to recover compensation from the defendant.
Apportionment of Damages:
In Vidya Devi v. M.P. State Road Transport Corp., a motor cyclist negligently dashed towards a bus and was once killed in the accident. The bus driver was also observed negligent in not avoiding the viable collision. The Madhya Pradesh High Court cited that between the deceased motor bike owner and the bus driver, the blame was once in the share of two-third and one-third, respectively. The court docket thus, awarded the damages to the plaintiff to the extent one-third of the amount he would have been entitled to, if the deceased were not negligent. In Maya Mukherjee v. Orissa Coop. Inc. Society Ltd., a motor Cyclist used to be killed in an accident with the car. The Orissa High Court considered the Negligence of the motor bicycle owner at 60% and that of the vehicle driver at 40%. The complete injury to the motorcyclist was assessed by the courtroom at Rs. 75,000. Accordingly, the court awarded Rs. 30,000 damages to the motor cyclist’s heirs i.e., 40% of Rs. 75,000.
From the above cases, it has been considered that many High Courts have followed the regulation enacted by way of the law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945, in spite of the fact that they are bound via frequent regulation and not the regulation made through the British Parliament. It may also be because the Indian Parliament has not enacted any law in this place to uproot the utility of this grave and unjust frequent law in India and, therefore, the Indian Courts concept it better to veer away from the application of this unjust frequent regulation so that complication and injustice are no longer caused to the parties concerned. However, the Indian Parliament in 1988 amended the Motor Vehicles Act and minimized to a little extent the rigor of frequent law and allowed constant amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000 in case of death, Rs. 25,000 in case of permanent disablement, to accident victims. The amount of compensation is now not affected even if the accident sufferer is negligent. However, it is submitted that although the various High Courts have veered away from the application of common regulation in Contributory Negligence instances to mitigate the hardships, it is the obligation of the Parliament to enact a just regulation (may be on the traces of Law Reforms (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945 in this location at the earliest.
Apportionment of Damages in case of Contributory Negligence by Velanati Jyothirmai @ Lex Cliq