- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROB NO. 72 OF 2016 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7787 OF 2015 (MV-I) IN MFA CROB.NO.72/2016 BETWEEN: CHETHANKUMAR @ CHETHAN S/O LATE RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O NO. 111/3, 3RD CROSS, BELLUR VILLAGE,BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 402. …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI. NAGESH M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THANGAVEL S/O PALANIYAPPA, AGED ABOT 45 YEARS, R/O METTUKADU NILAYA, ELLUPALI VILLAGE, THIRUCHNAGODU TALUK, NAMKAL DISTRICT TAMIL NADU STATE. 2 . THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE, V.V. ROAD, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA - 571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 29/02/2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.7787/15 PASSED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED : 30.06.2015 PASSED ON MVC NO.715/13 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, NAGAMANGALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO.7787/2015 BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NEAR GANAPATHY TEMPLE, V V ROAD, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY ASST.MANAGER AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AT REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX , RESIDENCY ROAD,. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRISHAILA S .,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHETHAN B.R, S/O LATE RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.111/3,3RD CROSS, BELLUR VILLAGE,BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 432. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 (AMENDED CAUSE TITLE VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2017) 2. THANGAVEL S/O PALANIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O METTUKADU-NILAYA, ELLUPALI VILLAGE, THIRUCHANAGODU TALUK, NAMKAL DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 28.07.2016, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.715/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, NAGAMANGALA, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.10,25,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT. THIS MFA CROB AND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT Both these appeals arises out of the judgment and award dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Nagamangala in MVC.No.715/2013. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 2. The insurer- respondent No.2 preferred MFA.No.7787/2015 and claimant filed MFA.crob.No.72/2016. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on, 08.09.2012, at about 6:00 a.m., the claimant was traveling in his goods vehicle bearing registration No. KA-12-6673, (claimant's vehicle) for the purpose of loading ragi at Kunigal. The said vehicle was going on N.H.48. At Hosakkipalya gate a borewell lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-MJ-996 (offending vehicle) was going infront of claimant's lorry. The driver of the offending lorry, negligently, without giving signal suddenly, turned the vehicle towards the right side of the road; As a result, the claimant's lorry hit the offending lorry to its rear side. Due to impact, the driver and two inmates of claimant's vehicle sustained injuries. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 5. The claimant further contended that he sustained fracture injuries. He was aged about 22 years and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. He has spent a substantial amount towards medical expenses. He suffered permanent disability, affecting his earning capacity. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.35,50,000/-. 6. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of offending vehicle. 7. Respondent No.1 was placed exparte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the contentions of the claimant. It was also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the claimant's lorry. In the alternate, it is contended that due to the contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles, the accident occurred. Respondent No. 2 also denied its liability to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. The Tribunal considering the contentions of the parties framed necessary issues. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 9. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to 14. Respondent No.2 in support of his case examined RW-1 and marked documents as R1 to R3. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver. The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant as 22 years, his income as Rs.8,000/- per month, added 50% of his income towards future prospects; assessed disability at 15% to the whole body and applied multiplier as '18' and calculated the compensation. The same is challenged by both the insurer as well as claimant in the present appeal. 10. I have heard the arguments. 11. The learned counsel for the insurer vehemently contended that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the drivers of both vehicles. The driver of the offending vehicle was going ahead of the claimant's vehicle. The claimant’s lorry driver did not maintain a proper distance between the two vehicles, and when the driver of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 offending lorry tried to turn the lorry, he could not control it and hit the backside of the offending lorry. The manner in which the accident occurred clearly indicats that it was due to the negligence of the driver of the claimant's lorry. The Tribunal had not considered these facts. 12. It was further contended that the major contribution in this case was by the driver of claimant's vehicle, there was no negligence by the driver of the offending vehicle for causing accident; even if there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry that was very marginal. He further contended that merely because a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, does not mean that said facts are gospel truth. 13. He also contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the higher side. The Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities without reasons. There was no justification for awarding compensation towards loss of future earning - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 capacity due to permanent disability. He contended that the claimant was the owner of the said lorry; He runs it on hire and earning income, therefore, even if he sustained injury that would not affect his earning capacity. He further contended that the amount of compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, and loss of income during the laid-up period, were on the higher side. For these reasons, he prayed that the compensation be re-calculated and a just and reasonable amount of compensation be awarded. 14. The claimant in the cross-objection has contended that the income of the claimant was taken on the lower side. The Tribunal has taken the income as Rs.16,000/- per month instead of Rs.8,000/-. The amount of compensation awarded under other heads are also meager. Therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation. The learned counsel for claimant contended that driver of the offending lorry was charge sheeted for the said accident. That was not challenged by owner or driver of the offending vehicle. No witnesses were examined to disprove the case of claimant. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 The Tribunal after considering all these facts rightly held that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of offending vehicle. It does not call for interference. 15. The rival contentions of the parties, following question arise for my determination: i. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the offending borewell lorry? ii. Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 16. Point No.1:- PW-1 was an inmate of the lorry and was said to be sitting in the cabin of the goods vehicle. In his evidence, he has reiterated the averments of the petition and stated that the offending lorry, which was going ahead of the claimant's vehicle, suddenly turned to the right side without giving any intimation. In the process, the rear side of the offending lorry touched the front portion of the goods vehicle, as a result of which the front right portion of the lorry was damaged. Along with himself, two other persons sustained injuries in the said accident. In his cross- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 examination by the respondent No. 2 – the insurer, it was suggested that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of his lorry and he denied it. He also denied the suggestions that the driver of his lorry was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. In the entire examination, respondent No. 2 could not get any admission to prove that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the claimant's lorry. 17. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending lorry, which is not in dispute. In the charge sheet, it was mentioned that the driver of the offending lorry, without giving any signal, suddenly turned the vehicle, as a result of which the goods vehicle coming behind the offending lorry hit the right side of the offending lorry, leading to damage to both vehicles. By oral and documentary evidence claimants have proved that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of offending lorry. The Tribunal considering the same held that accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 offending lorry. There are no reasons to interfere with the said finding. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the regulation 23 of the Motor Vehicel Rules, Central Motor Vehicle Act. It is pertinent to note that the respondents have not led any rebuttal evidence. RW-1 is not an eye witness to the accident. His evidence do not help to prove the contentions of respondents. In the cross-examination of PW- 1, distance between both the vehicle prior to collusion was not brought out. Even it was not suggested to PW-1 that the driver of the offending lorry, while turning the vehicle to the right side, gave any indication. Without any materials on record, the appellant-insurer contended that accident occurred due to contributory negligence of drivers of both the vehicle. Therefore, the said contention is not acceptable. 19. The Tribunal after appreciating the materials available on record, has rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 borewell lorry and the said finding does not call for any interference by this Court. 20. The medical records prove that the claimant sustained fracture of right femur and right tibia. He took treatment as inpatient and underwent surgeries. PW-2, the treated doctor, assessed the claimant's disability, which was properly analyzed by the Tribunal. It was rightly held that the claimant has suffered a permanent disability of 15% to the whole body. The claimant contended that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month; Except his self serving statement he has not produced any materials to prove his income. Even in the cross-examination he has stated that he has sold his lorry about two months after the accident. 21. According to the oral evidence as well as the pleadings, PW-1 asserted that he used to sell food grains in the villages by carrying the same in the said lorry. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is that the claimant has not lost his earning capacity due to functional disability, as he was the owner of the lorry. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 Without doing any work, he could still get income by hiring a driver to operate the lorry. The said contention is not acceptable. PW-1, in his cross-examination has not admitted the same. On the contrary, he has stated that he was selling food grains in the villages. The said evidence is believable. The functional disability is affecting his earning capacity. 22. The claimant has not suffered 100% disability or more percentage of disability. Hecne, addition towards future prospects to the income of the claimant is not permissible. The Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/- per month, which is on the higher side. Since the claimant failed to prove his income, following the chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, his notional income is taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. Undisputedly, the multiplier applicable is '18'. On the basis of above figures, the loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability is assessed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 23. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are on the higher side that needs to be re-calculated. 24. For the above said discussions, the claimant is entitled to following amount of compensation. Sl.No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Pain and suffering 75,000 2. Los of amenities 45,000 3. Medical expenses 3,38,500 4. Future medical expenses 30,000 5. Loss of income during laid up period(Rs.7,000x6) 42,000 6. Loss of future earning capacity (Rs.7,000x12x18x15%) 2,26,800 7. Attendance charges, special diet and conveyance charges 30,000 Total 7,87,300 Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.10,25,000/- Reduction Rs.2,37,700/- 25. The claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization. Undisputedly, respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending lorry. Both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 26. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative. 27. For the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) MFA.No.7787/2015 is partly allowed. ii. MFA.Crob.No.72/2016 is dismissed. iii) The judgment and award dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, at Nagamangala in MVC No.715/2013 stands modified; iv) The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.7,87,300/- as against Rs.10,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization(future medical expenses do not carry interest) v) Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said amount within a period of 6 months from the date of the award. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23320 MFA CROB NO.72 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7787 of 2015 vi) Release and deposit of the amount is as ordered by the Tribunal. vii) Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. No order as to costs. Draw award accordingly. Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG