- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15924 MFA No. 5305 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5305 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMANNA T.M., S/O LATE MAREGOWDA, @ AYYANNA, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O TARIKERE DAKLE, VAJARAPALYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 562 112. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. JAYALAKSHMI K.B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 8 (D.O. VIII) 22 DUG ROAD, UC PLAZA, BASAVANAGUDI, III STAGE, BANGALORE - 85. 2. CHETHAN CHANDRAN Y.R. S/O Y.S. RAGHURAMA CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, #6724, 1ST MAIN, HOSKEREHALLI, BANASANKARE, III STAGE, BANGALORE - 85. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 14/07/2016 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15924 MFA No. 5305 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 13.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.490/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT-15, KUNIGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER This appeal is by the claimant/petitioner, calling in question the judgment and award dated 13.09.2013, in MVC.No.490/2009, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-15, Kunigal on the ground of liability, as well as quantum. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal for easy reference. 3. Shorn of succinctly stated facts are as under: The claimant – appellant, Ramanna T.M, suffered accidental injuries on 22.10.2008, at about 9.45 p.m., when he was standing on the foot path along with his daughter by name Jayamma for crossing the road at ring - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15924 MFA No. 5305 of 2014 road on the same time one Bajaj Pulsar 150 SS DTS bearing registration No.KA-05-EY-2260 being driven by its rider rashly and negligently came from Bangalore side with high speed and dashed against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on neck, head and right leg. Immediately, after the accident he was taken to Bangalore hospital wherein he was given first aid treatment and thereafter he was admitted as inpatient. 4. The claimant-petitioner filed a claim petition claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.25 lakhs for the injuries suffered in the accident, due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. Pursuant to the notice issued on the claim petition, respondent No.1 appeared before the Court and filed written statement but respondent No.2 though served, remained absent and was placed exparte. The respondent No.1 stated that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid Driving License, interalia, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15924 MFA No. 5305 of 2014 contending that the claim petition filed is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 6. After completion of pleadings, the Tribunal framed four issues, which reads as under: 1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 22.10.2008 while the petitioner was standing on the footpath, near Veerabhadra Nagara, Bangalore, the rider of Bajaj Pulsar Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-05-EY-2260 rode the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and caused the accident? 2. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the accident has taken place due to contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner? 3. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the rider of Bajaj Pulsar Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-05-EY-2260 was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident? 4. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that they have paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner in full and final settlement of the accident claim? 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation and if so, at what quantum and from whom? 6. What order or award ? 7. The claimant to prove his case, he examined himself as PW-1 and got examined two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and produced 30 documents and marked the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15924 MFA No. 5305 of 2014 same as Exhibits-P1 to P30. The respondent – insurance company examined its Assistant Manager as RW-1 and produced four documents and marked the same as Exhibits-R1 to R4. 8. The Tribunal after on appreciation of the material on record and evidence adduced both oral and documentary, proceeded to award compensation in a sum of Rs.95,500/- (50% of contributory negligence i.e. Rs.2,31,000/- i.e Rs.1,15,500 - 20,000=95,500/-) along with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. 9. The injuries suffered by the claimant-petitioner as per Wound Certificate, Exhibit-P4, are as under: i. Haematoma over decipriatal region of scalp. ii. Head injury - a) Pneumocephalus b) Thin Subdural Haematoma - right frontal region c) Left occipital contusion d) Bifrontal contusion e) Cranial nerve palsy f) fracture of occipital bone. He was treated in Bengaluru hospital, Bengaluru wherein he was inpatient for 13 days. After discharge - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15924 MFA No. 5305 of 2014 once again the petitioner was admitted to KIMS hospital, Bengaluru as in-patient for a period of 15 days and undergone MRI, CT and x-ray examination and he was advised to take follow up treatment. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries. The doctor has assessed the permanent disability at 15% to his whole body. He was inpatient for a period of 28 days. The claimant claims that he was an agriculturist, doing sericulture work and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was not in a position to discharge his regular work and he has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities' and ‘loss of income during laid up period’ are on the lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards 'pain and suffering'. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15924 MFA No. 5305 of 2014 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has stated, the Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence of doctor – PW.2 and considering the wound certificate –Ex.P4 the overall compensation awarded is just and reasonable. Hence he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 13. Due to the accident the claimant has suffered injuries to neck, head and right leg. He was inpatient for a period of 28 days. He has examined the doctor – PW.2, who has assessed the disability at 15%. The Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability of 15%. Considering the evidence of doctor and wound certificate, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the heads ‘pain and suffering’, the compensation towards ‘loss of amenities’ from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.10,000/- (Rs.5,000x2) and for conveyance, attendant & extra nourishment food charges - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15924 MFA No. 5305 of 2014 from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-., attendant charges from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. 14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable. 15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) Loss of future earning capacity on account of permanent disability 81,000 81,000 Medical expenses 1,30,000 1,30,000 Food and other charges 5,000 10,000 Loss of amenities 5,000 25,000 Pain and suffering --- 50,000 Loss of income during laid up period (5,000x2) --- 10,000 Attendant charges 10,000 20,000 Total 2,31,000/- 3,26,000/- The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,26,000/-. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15924 MFA No. 5305 of 2014 With regard to contributory negligence 16. Sri. Rajendra Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Insurance Company vehemently contended that in the cross-examination of PW-3 the daughter of the claimant, who has accompanied the injured at the time of accident stated that her father was standing in between road and there was no zebra crossing line. Further, he submitted that as per the sketch, the accident has taken place in a place which was not meant for crossing the road. He has also submitted that even as per the complaint, the complainant- injured himself has stated that after alighting from the bus he was crossing the road, at that point of time the accident has taken place. Further, learned counsel for the respondent had argued taking this Court to paragraph No.14 of the Judgment of the Tribunal wherein the Insurance Company relied on the judgment of this Court in Koosappa Poojari Vs. K. Sadasha and others1, wherein this Court has held that "If a pedestrian 1 ILR 2003 KAR 1104 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15924 MFA No. 5305 of 2014 is crossing the roadway at any place other than which is meant for pedestrian crossing, he cannot claim any specific precedence and the responsibility for causing the accident pedestrian has to share the negligence along with the driver" and seeks for reduction of contributory negligence settled down by the Tribunal. 17. This Court has gone through the cross-examination of PW-3. The suggestion is, after proceeding in the road the injured has stopped on the road then he was standing on the road and at that point the accident has taken place. This clearly shows that the injured after noticing the oncoming motorcycle stopped from proceeding further on the road to avoid any untoward accident further since he has crossed the road to some extent the incident has taken place wherein he got injured. The 50% of contributory negligence saddled by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances, appears to be more and requires interference. It is no doubt true that the spot at which the accident has taken place was neither the zebra crossing nor the place which is meant for pedestrian crossing. However, after going through the spot sketch and the seizure mahazar, it is clear that the rider of the motor cycle - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15924 MFA No. 5305 of 2014 could have taken proper care and caution, as a user of road. He is the last and best person, who could have avoided the accident as the width of the road is 30 feet and he has got another 25 feet on the right side to proceed safely. In view of the same, the finding of the Tribunal that 50% of contributory negligence is modified to the extent of 20%. 18. For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 13.09.2013 in MVC.No.490/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-15, Kunigal is hereby modified and enhanced to Rs.3,26,000/- as against Rs.2,31,000/-. with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs.95,000/- amount from the date of the claim petition till its realization. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15924 MFA No. 5305 of 2014 iii. The contributory negligence fastened on the claimant is reduced from 50% to 20%. Hence, claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,60,800/- being 80% of Rs.3,26,000/-. Since the petitioner has already received Rs.20,000/- (Rs.2,60,800-20,000), the claimant is entitled for Rs.2,40,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum including the enhanced compensation from the date of the claim petition till its realization. iv. Disbursement and apportionment remains intact. No order as to cost. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AG List No.1 Sl.No.8