- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2981-DB MFA No. 101939 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102141 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101939 OF 2016(MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102141 OF 2016(MV) IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101939 OF 2016: BETWEEN: SHRI. UTTAM S/O MARUTI RAJPUT, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER NOW NIL, R/O: EWS-378, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591003. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH HATTIKATAGI AND SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, VRL LOGISTICS LTD., REG. AND ADMN. OFFICE AT NH-4, BANGALORE ROAD, VARUR, HUBBALLI-580027. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., HAVING ITS DIVISION OFFICE AT CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-591001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HAUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO, MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.03.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T., BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.1471/2015 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2981-DB MFA No. 101939 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102141 of 2016 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102141 OF 2016: BETWEEN: MR. NASARUDDIN S/O KHUTUBUDDIN KAKAIGAR AGE: 51 YEARS, CORRECT AGE IS 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: H.NO.3801, KOTWAL GALLI, BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH HATTIKATAGI AND SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, VRL LOGISTICS LTD., REG. AND ADMN. OFFICE AT NH-4, BANGALORE ROAD, VARUR, HUBBALLI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., HAVING ITS DIVISION OFFICE AT CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HAUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.03.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T., BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.1540/2015 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2981-DB MFA No. 101939 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102141 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) These appeals are as against the common judgment and award dated 19.03.2016 insofar as the claim petitions in M.V.C. Nos.1471/2015 and 1540/2015 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi [for short, ‘the Tribunal’]. The appeal in M.F.A. No.101939/2016 is by the injured- Claimant in M.V.C. No.1471/2015, and the other appeal in M.F.A. No.102141/2016 is by the owner of one of the vehicles [a truck involved in the accident]. 2. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition in M.V.C. No.1540/2015 by the owner but has allowed the claim petition by the injured-Claimant in M.V.C. No.1471/2015 granting compensation of Rs.4,27,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. The Tribunal has also provided for deposit of a substantial part of the amount awarded. The Tribunal has awarded the Claimant in M.V.C. No.1471/2015 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2981-DB MFA No. 101939 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102141 of 2016 viz., hereinafter referred to as injured-Claimant in a sum of Rs.6,10,000/- under the following heads. Pain and sufferings Rs.60,000/- Loss of future happiness and amenities Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of income during the treatment period Rs.28,000/- Incidental charges Rs.32,000/- Medical expenses Rs.12,000/- Loss of future income Rs.3,78,000/- Total Rs.6,10,000/- 3. The facts are that on 03.03.2014 the injured-Claimant was travelling as a cleaner in the truck bearing registration No.KA-22/A-7986 [owned by the Claimant in M.V.C. No.1540/2015] when there was an accident involving another truck bearing registration No.KA- 25/C-4211. The Claimants have stated that the accident is because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.KA-25/C-4211 [the offending Truck]. The injured-Claimant has suffered a fracture of navicular bone, and he has asserted that because of the injury, he has suffered restriction in his foot movement and that he cannot walk or run for a long distance. The other Claimant, who has filed the petition for damages to his vehicle, has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2981-DB MFA No. 101939 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102141 of 2016 produced no evidence to prove such damage. The injured- Claimant has examined himself as PW1, and a Doctor who has treated him, is examined as P.W.3. 4. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the ocular evidence and other documentary evidence such as the Police records, has opined that the accident is because of composite negligence with the driver of the offending vehicle is responsible to the extent of 70% and the driver of the truck bearing registration No.KA-22/A-7986 [in which the injured-claimant was travelling] is responsible to the extent of 30%. The Tribunal has restricted the compensation to the injured-Claimant in a sum of Rs.4,27,000/- i.e., 70% of Rs.6,10,000/-. The Tribunal, in arriving at this conclusion on the negligence, has essentially relied upon the evidence of the injured-Claimant in his cross-examination. The injured- Claimant in his cross-examination has stated that the driver of the truck in which he was travelling stopped without signal and that is why the offending truck dashed from the rear. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2981-DB MFA No. 101939 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102141 of 2016 5. On the quantum of compensation to the injured-Claimant, the Tribunal has assessed the injured’s income at Rs.7,000/- per month and his functional disability at 25%. The Tribunal has arrived at loss of future income in a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- applying the multiplier of 18 based on these parameters. The Tribunal, apart from loss of future income, has also awarded substantial amounts towards pain and suffering, loss of future happiness and amenities, loss of income during the laid-up period, medical expenses and incidental charges. 6. Sri. Santosh S. Hattikatagi, the learned counsel who appears for the Claimants, argues for interference with the Tribunal’s finding on apportionment of negligence in the ratio 70:30 between the driver of the offending vehicle and the driver of the vehicle in which the injured-Claimant was travelling and seek enhancement of compensation towards loss of future income. The learned counsel submits that the evidence of the injured-Claimant as a witness to the accident must be read in totality and every statement in cross-examination will have to be read - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2981-DB MFA No. 101939 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102141 of 2016 contextually. As against this submission, Sri. G.N. Raichur submits that the injured-claimant’s evidence in cross- examination is categorical and he has stated that the driver [of the truck he was travelling in] stopped the vehicle and that is why the offending vehicle coming from the rear dashed against the other truck. 7. These rival submissions are examined to answer the questions: Whether there must be any interference with the Tribunal’s finding that the injured- Claimant will be entitled only for 70% of the compensation determined and whether there must be any enhancement in the compensation. 8. The only witness to the accident is the injured-Claimant. He has stated in his affidavit-in-chief that when they were on Pune Bengaluru Highway N.H.4, which has three lanes, there was a water tanker in the lane immediately abutting the median watering the trees / plants and that the driver of his truck had to slow down because of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2981-DB MFA No. 101939 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102141 of 2016 the same. However, in the cross-examination, he has stated that his truck was travelling on the lane next to the lane where the water tanker was moving while admitting the suggestion that his driver stopped the vehicle without giving signal and therefore the driver of the offending vehicle dashed from the behind. This statement is while denying the suggestion that the accident is because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck and that the driver of his truck was negligent. 9. The evidence of this witness establishes that the accident is on a highway which has three lanes with the first lane next to the median being occupied by a slow- moving water tanker and that the accident is in the second lane. It is possible that the driver of the truck in which the injured-Claimant was travelling slowed down his vehicle, but he did not give the signal. For the purposes of inferring any contributory negligence for an accident on that part of highway which has three lanes with one of the lane being occupied by slow-moving water tanker, mere statement that - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2981-DB MFA No. 101939 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102141 of 2016 the signal was not given or that the vehicle had to slow down will not be conclusive. 10. This Court will have to note that the Insured has examined no witness to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle, notwithstanding the constraint of a slow-moving water tanker on one of the abutting lanes, could not anticipate that the vehicle in front may slow down. The assessment of contributory negligence in the peculiarities of the case, and the composite negligence when it is at the instance of an inmate of a vehicle, will have to be considered holistically. When so considered, this Court is persuaded to opine that the Tribunal has not rightly appreciated the evidence on record in opining that the compensation must be restricted because the driver of the truck in which the injured-Claimant was travelling is also responsible. 11. The injured-Claimant has only suffered a navicular bone fracture, but there is no evidence to show that this has resulted in any mal-union for just inference - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2981-DB MFA No. 101939 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102141 of 2016 that there is a functional disability of 25% as is assessed by the Tribunal. This has resulted in a compensation which is high. The injured-Claimant may be entitled for computation for loss of future income taking a higher income perhaps with some addition with future prospects, but with the Tribunal taking the disability at 25% and granting a higher compensation, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation. 12. This Court concludes that the Tribunal has arrived at just and reasonable compensation in a sum of Rs.6,10,000/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded 9% in interest, but there is no justification to award the same when the interest that is generally awarded at 6% per annum and the settled law is that higher rate of interest must be only when circumspection circumstances are brought on record. Insofar as the appeal by the Claimant in M.V.C. No.1540/2017, the owner of the truck, this Court cannot take any exception that the claim petition is rejected on the ground that no evidence is brought on record to - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2981-DB MFA No. 101939 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102141 of 2016 justify the claim for damages. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The appeal in M.F.A. No.101939/2016 is allowed in part modifying the Tribunal’s judgment dated 19.03.2016 insofar as M.V.C. No.1471/2015 holding that the Claimant will be entitled for a sum of Rs.6,10,000/- but with interest at 6% per annum from day the petition is filed the petition till deposit. [b] The Insurer is called upon to deposit the remainder of the compensation in terms of this order along with interest at 6% per annum within [8] eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. [c] The appeal in M.F.A. No.102141/2016 is rejected. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 7