- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4231 MFA No. 3191 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3191 OF 2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. SADIQ PASHA S/O GHOUSE, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT GANDHI NAGAR, 4TH CROSS, TIPTUR TOWN AND TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY LTD GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERWADA, PUNE - 411 006 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (POLICY NO.OG- 16-1149-1831-0000222 VALID FROM 05-09-2015 TO 04-09-2016 INSURER OF THE LORRY NO.HR -55/L-5240 2. MAHAVEER TRANSPORT PVT LTD C-1/14, PRASANT VIHAR SECTOR - 14 PRASHANT VIHAR-110 085 LORRY OWNER OF THE NO HR-55/L-5240 HARYANA STATE - 110 085 3. S CHETHAN KUMAR, S/O T M SHIVASHAKER, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4231 MFA No. 3191 of 2023 R/O 1ST CROSS, GOVINAPURA, TIPTUR TALUK - 572201 TUMAKURU DISTRICT [OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG NO. KA-44-3468] 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., TGMA BUILDING, J.C. ROAD, TUMAKURU - 577201 [INSURER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG NO KA-44-3468 VIDE POLICY BEARING NO. 472605/31/2016/4510 VALID FROM 01-01-2016 TO 31-12-2016 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADISH P.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DTD.29.05.2023) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.1172/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR, 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 PRADEEP SINGH YERUR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4231 MFA No. 3191 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 19.01.2023 passed in MVC.No.1172/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Tiptur (for short ‘the tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 12.01.2016, the claimant was proceeding as a driver along with a cleaner in the Lorry bearing registration No.KA-44-3568. Due to the breakdown of the vehicle, he had stopped the vehicle on the left side of the road in order to repair the same. But in the meanwhile, another Lorry bearing Registration No.HR-55-L-5240 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant and the cleaner. Due to which both sustained grievous injuries. The cleaner succumbed to the injuries - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4231 MFA No. 3191 of 2023 on the spot and the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained and the expenditure spent for the treatment. 4. Respondents before the tribunal filed statement of objection, denied the claim of the claimant and pleaded contributory negligence as against the claimant. On the basis of material placed on record, both oral and documentary, the tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,26,000/- and fastened 30% liability against the claimant and awarded compensation of Rs.3,68,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. 5. The claimant is aggrieved by the inadequate compensation and fastening of 30% contributory negligence, which is erroneous and seeks to set aside the same and award higher compensation commensurate to the injuries and considering the fact that the claimant is a driver of the lorry, he is unable to do his work, as he was doing prior to the occurrence of the accident. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4231 MFA No. 3191 of 2023 6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent - Insurance Company of the offending vehicle sustains the impugned order. He also contends that the claim petition filed by the claimants of the deceased cleaner also ended up in compensation being granted to the deceased therein, however, the claimants of the deceased cleaner have not preferred an appeal challenging the said award. The Respondents have satisfied the said amount. Under the circumstances they contend that the fastening of 30% liability against the vehicle of the claimant is sustainable and seeks dismissal of the claim petition. 7. The occurrence of the accident and involvement of the vehicle, claimant having sustained injuries due to the occurrence of the accident are established by production of Exs.P1 to P130 and Exs.C1 to C11. The negligence against the offending vehicle is fixed at 70%, which is not questioned or challenged by the offending vehicle, so also, negligence on the vehicle of the claimant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4231 MFA No. 3191 of 2023 by the Insurance Company is not questioned, and it is only the claimant, who is before this Court. 8. The tribunal after consideration of the materials placed before the Court has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.11,000/- p.m, considering the avocation of the claimant as a driver of a Lorry and also appreciating the evidence of the Doctor, CW.1, who opined a disability to an extent of 30% to the particular limb and 10% to the whole body and tribunal granted disability at 10%. The multiplier is taken at '15', which is correct and does not call for interference on the basis of the age of the claimant being 45 years. Therefore, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the loss of future earning capacity awarded by the tribunal at Rs.1,98,000/-. The same is retained. 9. Towards pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/-. Additional Rs.10,000/- is awarded under this head. In all, Rs.60,000/- is awarded. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4231 MFA No. 3191 of 2023 10. Towards loss of income during laid up period, the tribunal has awarded Rs. 33,000/-. The claimant would require at-least four months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.44,000/- (Rs.11,000 x 4) under this head. 11. Towards medical expenses Rs.1,95,000/- is awarded. The same is retained. 12. Towards food, conveyance, nutrition and attendance charges Rs.25,000/- is awarded. 13. Towards loss of amenities, tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/-. Additional Rs.25,000/- is awarded. In all, Rs.55,000/- is awarded under this head. 14. Towards future medical expenses, the Doctor has opined expenditure of Rs.45,000/-. Whereas, the tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. Additional Rs.10,000/- is awarded under this head. In all, Rs.30,000/- is awarded under this head. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4231 MFA No. 3191 of 2023 15. Now coming to the aspect of the argument vehemently put forth by the learned counsel for the claimant that there is absolutely no contributory negligence, on the part of the claimant as the vehicle was parked on the left side of the road, broken down due to repair. Therefore, entire negligence ought to have been fastened against the offending vehicle. 16. I am of the view that this contention cannot be accepted for the reason that if a person parks the vehicle either deliberately or due to the reason of the vehicle having broken down or due to any mechanical failure or otherwise, it is the duty of the driver of the vehicle to inform the nearest Highway Patrol Vehicle to facilitate moving the vehicle to the safest location, or in the alternative, make temporary suitable arrangements to show a signal or any mark or any signage to depict breakdown of the vehicle which would indicate the other vehicles to slow down and avoid collision against the vehicle, which is broken down. Same has not been done. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4231 MFA No. 3191 of 2023 Therefore, the tribunal is right and justified in fastening 30% contributory negligence against the vehicle of the claimant. I do not find any good reason to interfere with the same or set aside the same. Accordingly, the same is retained. 17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,24,900/- as against Rs.3,68,200/- as mentioned in the table below: Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount of compensation awarded 1 Loss of future income 1,98,000-00 2 Pain and suffering 60,000-00 3 Loss of amenities 55,000-00 4 Loss of income during laid-up period 44,000-00 5 Food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges 25,000-00 6 Medical expenses 1,95,000-00 7 Future medical expenses 30,000-00 TOTAL 6,07,000-00 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4231 MFA No. 3191 of 2023 (-) 30% Contributory Negligence 1,82,100-00 TOTAL 4,24,900-00 18. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 19.01.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Tiptur in MVC No.1172/2016, is modified. iii) The liability fixed by 70% as against the offending vehicle and 30% against the vehicle of the claimant is retained. iv) In view of the deduction of 30%, the appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,24,900/- as against Rs.3,68,200/- awarded by the tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum, out of which the amount towards future medical expenses of Rs.30,000/- will not carry interest. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4231 MFA No. 3191 of 2023 v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimant upon furnishing the required bank details/upon proper identification. vii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact. viii) Registry is directed to transmit the original records to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7