- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14490 MFA No. 101270 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101270 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI RAMESH S/O. BHIMAPPA PUJAR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE (NOW NIL), R/O: DEVARSHIGIHALLI, TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. YASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI AJIT S/O. GANGADHAR SANAMANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 188, KALMESHWAR GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590006. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14490 MFA No. 101270 of 2017 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, PRABHU BUILDING, 1732, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.12.2016 IN M.V.C. NO.1715/2015 BY THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI, IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,71,856/- WITH 6% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION MAY BE KINDLY MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED WITH 18% INTEREST AND HOLDING APPELLANT 20% CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE MAY KINDLY BE SET-ASIDE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14490 MFA No. 101270 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri. Yash, who represents Sri. Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel on record for the appellant as well as Ms.Sharmila M. Patil learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, in MVC 1715 of 2015 dated 03.12.2016. 3. The undisputed facts of the case are as under: (i) The appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 03.06.2015. (ii) While the appellant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.24/S.7771, his motorcycle was hit by another motorcycle which bears registration No.KA.22/W.1942 and thereby the accident occurred. (iii) The appellant was not possessing valid driving license to ride motorcycle as on the date of accident. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14490 MFA No. 101270 of 2017 (iv) The rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.22/W.1942 was charge sheeted, holding that due to his negligence the accident occurred. 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant filed petition, claiming compensation, duly taking a plea that the rider of the motorcycle which belongs to respondent No.1 and which was insured with respondent No.2 was at fault. Though the tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle which belongs to respondent No.1 yet only because the appellant was not holding driving licence to ride motorcycle, held that the contribution of the appellant for occurrence of the accident is 20%. Learned counsel states that absence of driving license does not mean that the person who does not hold driving license has contributed for the accident to occur. Learned counsel stressing on this aspect, relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Dinesh Kumar J. Alias Dinesh J. Vs. National Insurance - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14490 MFA No. 101270 of 2017 Company Limited and others1, wherein their Lordships at paras 7 and 8 of the judgment held as follows. 7. ......... We are in agreement with the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant that plea of contributory negligence was accepted purely on the basis of conjecture and without any evidence. Once the finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is held to be without any basis, the second aspect which weighed both with the tribunal and the High Court, that the appellant had not produced the driving licence, would be of no relevance. This aspect has been considered in a judgment of this Court in Sudhir Kumar (supra) where it was held as follows : “9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which 1 (2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 750 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14490 MFA No. 101270 of 2017 contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence. 10. The matter might have been different if by reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place.” 8. In view of the above position, we are of the view that the deduction of forty per cent which was made on the ground of contributory negligence is without any basis. ......” 5. As rightly contented, only because of the appellant has not produced his driving licence to show that he has licence to ride the motorcycle as on the date of accident, the tribunal held that the appellant also contributed for the cause of accident and such contribution is 20%. But without any material to show that the appellant was either negligent or has anyway contributed for the occurrence of accident, this Court is of the view that he cannot be held liable to any extent. Therefore the observation of the tribunal that the appellant contributed for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14490 MFA No. 101270 of 2017 the accident to occur and such contribution is 20%, is liable to be set aside. 6. Coming to the quantum, admittedly the appellant sustained fracture of distal end of femur, fracture of proximal end of tibia and fibula with dislocation of patella. Also it is not in dispute that the appellant took treatment as inpatient for 22 days. 7. As per the version of the appellant by doing coolie work he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by the date of accident. The tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.7,000/- per month. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is that the accident occurred in the year 2015 and for the relevant period the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad Bench is taking the national income as Rs.8,000/- per month for settlement of claims and therefore the said figure ought to have been adopted by the tribunal. Having considered justification in the submission thus made, this - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14490 MFA No. 101270 of 2017 Court considers desirable to take the notional income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/- per month as on the date of accident. The percentage of disability assessed by the tribunal is sound and therefore it needs no interference. Hence taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month, the disability in respect of whole body as 10% and applying the appropriate multiplier ‘17’, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards ‘loss of future earnings’ is Rs.1,63,200/- (8,000x12x17x10%). 8. This Court is of the view that in the light of the grievous injuries sustained and the treatment taken i.e. for a period of 22 days as inpatient, the appellant could not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 5 months. Therefore ‘loss of earnings during laid up period’ comes to Rs.40,000/- (8,000x5). 9. The compensation that is granted towards ‘pain and suffering’, towards ‘food, extra nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges’, towards ‘medical expenses’ and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14490 MFA No. 101270 of 2017 towards ‘future medical expenses’ needs no interference. However the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities in life’. Thus the total compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive under each head is as under: Heads Amount in Rs. Towards pain and suffering 60,000.00 Towards food, extra nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges 22,000.00 Towards medical expenses 17,620.00 Towards loss of future earnings 1,63,200.00 Towards loss of income during laid up period 40,000.00 Towards loss of amenities 15,000.00 Towards future medical expenses 20,000.00 Total 3,37,820.00 10. Thus the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,37,820/- as compensation. Therefore the appeal is disposed of with the following. ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Contributory negligence attributed on part of the appellant is set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14490 MFA No. 101270 of 2017 (iii) The compensation that is granted by the tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,14,820/- to Rs.3,37,820/-. (iv) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. (v) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire sum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (vi) On such deposit the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39