- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14346 MFA No. 103173 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 100590 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103173 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100590 OF 2016 IN M.F.A.NO.103173/2016 BETWEEN: SHRI LAKKAPPA S/O. MUDAKAPPA GORABAL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: CENTERING (MASON) WORK, NOW NIL, R/O: DHARMATTI, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.S.R.T.C. CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER, N.W.K.R.T.C., DEPOT, GOKAK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY PRINCIPAL GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.03 12:22:04 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14346 MFA No. 103173 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 100590 of 2016 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GOKAK IN M.V.C. NO.2041/2014 DATED 30.11.2015 AND FIXE THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON RESPONDENTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN M.F.A.NO.100590/2016 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI, BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE, CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SHR. LAKKAPPA S/O. MUDAKAPPA GORABAL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: CENTERING (MASON) WORK, NOW NIL, R/O: DHARAMATTI, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GOKAK IN M.V.C. NO.2041/2014 DATED 30.11.2015 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14346 MFA No. 103173 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 100590 of 2016 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) 1. Heard Sri. Hanumant R. Latur, learned counsel for the claimant as well as Sri. I. C. Patil, learned counsel for the Corporation. 2. These two appeals are the outcome of the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gokak (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for brevity), in MVC No.2041/2014 dated 30.11.2015. 3. While MFA No.10590/2016 is filed by NWKSRTC (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Corporation’, for brevity), disputing its liability to pay compensation, MFA No.103173/2016 is filed by the claimant therein aggrieved by the contributory negligence attributed on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14346 MFA No. 103173 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 100590 of 2016 his part as well as with a request seeking enhancement in compensation. 4. The matrix of the case as projected by the claimant before the Tribunal is that, on 18.07.2014 at about 1.00 pm, while he was returning from Makkalgeri to Gokak on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 23/L-7042, while he was proceeding on Gokak- Yaragatti road, when he reached near Dhundanhatti cross, a bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F-3091 came from behind at high speed driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. 5. Undisputedly, the claimant was not holding driving licence to ride the motorcycle as on the date of accident. Also it is not in dispute that the police after due investigation laid charge sheet against the driver of the Corporation alone that the accident occurred - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14346 MFA No. 103173 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 100590 of 2016 due to his negligence. Considering the fact that the claimant was not holding driving licence, the Tribunal attributed contributory negligence to an extent of 10% upon him. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the claimant is that, there is no evidence produced by the Corporation to show that the claimant was either negligent or rash at the time of accident. Learned counsel states that, it is the driver of the Corporation who drove the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. Learned counsel states that, though entire police record speaks that the driver of the bus alone was at fault, the Tribunal held that the negligence on the part of the claimant is to an extent of 10% which is unjustifiable. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation states that the claimant was not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14346 MFA No. 103173 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 100590 of 2016 processing driving licence to ride motorcycle at the relevant time and thus, he should be held to have contributed for the accident to occur. 8. Basing on contents of Ex.P1-FIR, police investigated the case and filed charge sheet holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation. It is not the case of the Corporation that the driver gave complaint to police immediately after the accident or any time thereafter stating that the accident occurred only due to the fault on the part of the claimant herein. Case records reveals that the bus came from behind and hit the motorcycle due to which the claimant who was riding the motorcycle fell down and sustained injuries. Thus, in the absence of any convincing material to hold that the claimant contributed for the accident to occur, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal ought not to have attributed contributory negligence on the part of the claimant herein. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14346 MFA No. 103173 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 100590 of 2016 9. Now coming to the amount that is awarded as compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,57,760/- in total. By all the material produced, the claimant succeeded in establishing that he sustained compound communited fracture of left Tibia and Fibula, fracture of upper end of right Tibia and fracture of distal phalanx of left index, apart from other simple injuries. The claimant also succeeded in establishing that he took treatment as inpatient for 22 days and that he underwent operations twice. Subjecting entire evidence to scrutiny, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the disability in respect of whole body can be taken as 18% and the said observation needs no interference. 10. So far as the earnings of the claimant as on the date of accident are concerned, as per his version, as a mason, he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.6,000/- per month. The submission that is made - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14346 MFA No. 103173 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 100590 of 2016 by learned counsel for the claimant in this regard is that, the accident occurred in the year 2014 and for the relevant period, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad, is taking the notional income as Rs.7,500/- per month and at least the said figure should have been considered by the Tribunal. 11. Having found justification in the submission thus made, this Court considers desirable to take the notional income of the claimant as Rs.7,500/- per month. Without disturbing other parameters i.e., application of appropriate multiplier 16 and the disability in respect of whole body as 18%, the compensation which the claimant is entitled to receive towards ‘loss of future earnings’ is Rs.2,59,200/- (Rs.7,500 x 12 x 16 x 18%). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,07,360/- only under the said head. Thus the enhancement will be Rs.51,840/- (Rs.2,59,200 – Rs.2,07,360). - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14346 MFA No. 103173 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 100590 of 2016 12. Having considered the fact that the claimant took treatment as inpatient for 22 days and that he underwent surgeries twice, this Court is of the view that he should have taken bed rest at least for a period of five months. Thus, ‘loss of earnings during laid up period’ comes to Rs.37,500/- (7,500 x 5). But the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- only towards ‘loss of earnings during laid up period’. Therefore the enhancement will be Rs.25,500/- (Rs.37,500 – Rs.12,000). 13. Also this Court is of the view that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards ‘food and attendant charges’. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,400/- only under the said head. Thus, the enhancement will be Rs.5,600/- (Rs.10,000 – Rs.4,400). 14. The Tribunal failed to award any sum towards conveyance charges. This Court is of the view that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14346 MFA No. 103173 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 100590 of 2016 the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards ‘conveyance charges’. Also this Court is of the view that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities in life’. 15. Thus, the total compensation which the claimant is entitled to receive in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is Rs.1,02,940/-(51840+25500+5600+5000+15000). 16. Insofar as grant of interest is concerned, as rightly contented by learned counsel for the Corporation, for the relevant period, the rate of interest on the awarded sum should be 6% per annum, but not 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. 17. Therefore both the appeals are disposed of with the following order: ORDER i. Both the appeals are allowed in part. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14346 MFA No. 103173 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 100590 of 2016 ii. The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gokak through orders in MVC No.2041/2014 dated 30.11.2015 is enhanced by Rs.1,02,940/-. iii. The amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal as well as the enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. iv. The Corporation is directed to deposit the entire compensation along with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. v. On deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. vi. Amount, if any in deposit, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74