- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5282-DB MFA No. 202175 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201709 of 2025 MFA No. 201871 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202175 OF 2025 (MV-I) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201709 OF 2025 (MV-I) MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201871 OF 2025 (MV-I) IN MFA No.202175/2025: BETWEEN: RAVICHANDRA S/O. SHIVAPPA AGE 24 YEARS, OCC. AGRI & COOLIE, R/O.H NO.199/14, SUNNADAKAL VILLAGE, TQ. DEODURGA, DIST. RAICHUR. NOW R/O. LBS NAGAR, TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584101. &APPELLANT (BY SMT. PATIL SHANTABAI SUBHASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SABANNA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA AGE MAJOR, OCC.OWNER OF TRACTOR, BEARING REG. NO.KA-36/N-6334, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5282-DB MFA No. 202175 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201709 of 2025 MFA No. 201871 of 2025 R/O. MADAKAL VILLAGE, TQ. DEODURGA & DIST. RAICHUR-584101. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., H.M.GENEVA HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-584101. POLICY NO.2316203763814900000 VALID FROM 28-10-2020 TO 27-10-2021 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2; V/O. DATED 31.07.2025, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2025, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAICHUR IN MVC NO.521/2021 AND PLEASED TO ENHANCE COMPENSATION AND PLEASED TO FASTEN WHOLE LIABILITY ON RESPONDENT NO.2 -INSURER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IN MFA No.201709/2025: BETWEEN: BASAMMA W/O RAVICHANDRA, AGE 25 YEARS, OCC.COOLIE R/O.H.NO.199/14, SUNNADAKAL VILLAGE, TQ. DEODURGA & DIST. RAICHUR-584101. NOW R/O. LBS NAGAR, TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584101. &APPELLANT (BY SMT. PATIL SHANTABAI SUBHASH, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5282-DB MFA No. 202175 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201709 of 2025 MFA No. 201871 of 2025 AND: 1. SABANNA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA AGE MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING REG. NO.KA-36/N-6334, R/O. MADAKAL VILLAGE, TQ. DEODURGA & DIST. RAICHUR-584101. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., H. M. GENEVA HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-584101. POLICY NO.2316203736814900000 VALID FROM 28.10.2020 TO 27.10.2021 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2; V/O. DATED 02.07.2025, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2025, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAICHUR IN MVC NO.520/2021 AND PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION, AND PLEASED TO FASTEN WHOLE LIABILITY ON THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - INSURER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IN MFA No.201871/2025: BETWEEN: AMBA DEVI S/O. SHIVAPPA AGE 25 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. H.NO.199/14, SUNNADAKAL VILLAGE, TQ. DEODURGA & DIST. RAICHUR. NOW R/O. LBS NAGAR, TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584101. &APPELLANT (BY SMT. PATIL SHANTABAI SUBHASH, ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5282-DB MFA No. 202175 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201709 of 2025 MFA No. 201871 of 2025 AND: 1. SABANNA S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGE MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING REG. NO.KA-36/N-6334, R/O. MADAKAL VILLAGE, TQ. DEODURGA & DIST. RAICHUR-584101. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., H M GENEVA HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-584101. POLICY NO. 23162037363814900000 VALID FROM 28-10-2020 TO 27-10-2021 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2025, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAICHUR, IN MVC NO.422/2021 AND PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION, AND PLEASED TO FASTEN WHOLE LIABILITY ON THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - INSURER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISISON, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5282-DB MFA No. 202175 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201709 of 2025 MFA No. 201871 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) These three appeals being MFA Nos.202175/2025, 201709/2025 and 201871/2025 are by injured-claimants seeking enhancement of compensation arising out of judgment and award dated 19.02.2025 in MVC NoS.442/2021, 520/2021 and 521/2021, passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Raichur (for short, 8the Tribunal9) on the quantum of compensation as well seeking to set aside fastening of contributory negligence on the injured-claimants to the extent of 40%. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle and injuries suffered by the respective claimants as well as liability to pay the compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute in these appeals is with regard to inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal and fastening of contributory negligence. 3. Heard Smt. Patil Shantabai Subhash, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants in all these - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5282-DB MFA No. 202175 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201709 of 2025 MFA No. 201871 of 2025 appeals and Sri Manjunath Mallayya Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 3 insurance company. Vide order dated 31.07.2025, 02.07.2025 and 09.09.2025 notice of these appeals to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 4. Smt. Patil Shantabai Subhash taking this Court through the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal vehemently submitted that the Tribunal not properly awarded compensation under all the heads and the one awarded under all the heads are meager compared to the injuries suffered. Further submitted that the Tribunal without there being any charge-sheet filed against the rider of the vehicle, fastened 40% contributory negligence on the rider as well as pillion riders only on the ground that there are three persons riding on the motorcycle i.e., rider with two pillion riders. The spot sketch clearly shows that it is the driver of the Truck who is responsible for the accident. Though the Tribunal has observed that no prima facie evidence is found to show contributory negligence on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5282-DB MFA No. 202175 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201709 of 2025 MFA No. 201871 of 2025 the part of the claimants but on some strap admission of the witness i.e., rider by name Ravichandra, that all the three injured were on the motorcycle, on the fateful day, when the incident/accident had occurred. In these circumstances, the liability of 40% fastened towards contributory negligence requires to be set aside and the compensation awarded under all the heads requires to be re-determined and enhanced. Accordingly, sought to allow all the appeals. 5. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Manjunath Mallayya Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 3 insurance company in all these appeals with all vehemence submitted that the Police records, FIR as well as charge- sheet speaks against the appellants/claimants. As per the charge-sheet, all the three claimants are resident of Sunnadakal Galag village. On 20.04.2021 at about 10.00 a.m., they proceeded to Arkera Hospital which was situated at Sunnadakal Galag road. After attending the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5282-DB MFA No. 202175 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201709 of 2025 MFA No. 201871 of 2025 hospital, while returning from Sunnadakal Galag side, the accident had occurred. The accident spot is on the extreme right side. As per the sketch which lucidly shows that the rider of the motorcycle was on the wrong side and since there are three persons riding on the motorcycle, all are responsible for the accident, as the seating capacity is only 2. 6. In the case on hand, there are three persons on the motor cycle, the said fact is also one of the cause for the accident. Though there is no prime evidence find in the record to show contributory negligence on the part of the claimants, however considering the fact that there are three persons riding on the bike which clearly shows that they all have contributed towards the accident and hence the Tribunal is right in fixing 40% contributory negligence on all the injured-claimants which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 7. Sofar as enhancement of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5282-DB MFA No. 202175 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201709 of 2025 MFA No. 201871 of 2025 compensation taking into consideration the disability at 25% stated by the doctor as it is, for single fracture, to the whole body in MVC No.422/2021. Sofar as MVC No.520/2021 is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the disability at 20% to the whole body, whereas the injuries suffered is almost identical as in motor accident claims cases stated supra. In MVC No.521/2021 is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 40% stated by the doctor, wherein also the injuries is almost same as that of the two claim petitions stated supra. In these circumstances, the learned counsel urges that this Court taking judicial note of the fact that in the absence of appeal by the Corporation, considering the aspect of the matter re-determine the compensation thereby reduce the compensation and award appropriate compensation to which the claimants are entitled in terms of law. He has further submitted that, it is settled position of law that the compensation should be a just compensation and neither be a bonanza nor a pittance. In all the cases on hand, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5282-DB MFA No. 202175 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201709 of 2025 MFA No. 201871 of 2025 disability taken by the Tribunal is excessively high when compared to the fractures in the absence of particular limb disability. Accordingly, sought to dismiss all the three appeals. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers as well as trial Court records, the points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening contributory negligence of 40% on the injured-claimants in all the three appeals? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires any interference at the hands of this Court?= 9. Our answer to the above points for consideration are as under: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5282-DB MFA No. 202175 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201709 of 2025 MFA No. 201871 of 2025 Point No.1: In Affirmative Point No.2: In Negative for the following: REASONS As could be seen from the police records, it is not forthcoming as to the direction of movement of both the vehicles. The police records shows that it is a head on collusion as per the complaint as well as charge-sheet materials. The injured claimants are resident of Sunnadakal village and according to them they are proceeding towards Sunnadakal after attending hospital at Galag and while returning towards Sunnadakal i.e., to their residence the accident has taken place. If that be so, since the spot of accident is on extreme right side, the injured proceeding on the motorcycle were on the wrong side. Though the Tribunal has stated there is no prime evidence found in the record to establish rash and negligent riding on the part of the rider, however, only on the fact that there were three persons riding the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5282-DB MFA No. 202175 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201709 of 2025 MFA No. 201871 of 2025 motorcycle, the Tribunal has proceeded to fasten 40% contributory negligence. Though the finding of the Tribunal is not sustainable, however, the police record clearly reveals that the accident spot was on the extreme right side and very same record speaks that the injured- claimants were returning towards Sunnadakal. In these circumstances, it is indeed the injured claimants were on the wrong side of the road. However, the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability on all the three persons riding, in the facts and circumstances of the case is on the higher side. Since, the disability taken by the Tribunal for the fractures suffered is excessively high, we feel it appropriate not to interfere in the contributory negligence taken by the Tribunal i.e., 40%. So also we are of the opinion that in view of the contributory negligence at 40%, the compensation awarded though seems to be little on higher side in view of the contributory negligence, supra the same is kept intact, in all the appeals. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5282-DB MFA No. 202175 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201709 of 2025 MFA No. 201871 of 2025 10. For the foregoing reasons, we answer both points for consideration against the appellants/claimants. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeals sans merit and accordingly dismissed. ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT:JLR