- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31229 MFA No. 5676 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5676 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MUNIVENKATARAYAPPA, S/O CHIKKAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT #18, 2ND CROSS, ANANDANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 092. PERMANENT ADDRESS: # 94, DINNEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DIST. …APPELLANT (BY SRI K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SYED IBRAHIM, S/O SYED KAREEM MAJOR, R/AT HOUSE #5-1-98/-111, FLOW CONVENT SCHOOL ROAD, BIRLA AREA, WADI, CHITTAPUR, GULBARGA-KARNATAKA-585 211. 2. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, V & VI FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002. REP. BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI.AKSHAY P.V, ADV. FOR SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADV.FOR R2) Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31229 MFA No. 5676 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.45/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE (SCCH-22) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC.No.45/2013 passed by the Member MACT and XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH-22), the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 4. The fact that on 11.09.2012, when the petitioner was proceeding on his TVS Super XL two - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31229 MFA No. 5676 of 2015 wheeler, he met with an accident with a Maruti 800 Car bearing No.KA-32-M-3441 is not in dispute. Due to the impact, the petitioner had fallen down and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chikkaballapur and later, he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru for treatment. The petitioner contended that he had sustained several injuries in the accident and as such, he had sought compensation from the owner and insurer of the Maruti 800 Car. 5. The petition was opposed by the Insurance Company contending that the petitioner was not having a valid driving licence to drive a two wheeler and therefore, there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner also. The Tribunal upheld the same and fastened 25% of contributory negligence on him and while answering the issues framed by it; awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and deducted 25% towards the contributory negligence from it. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31229 MFA No. 5676 of 2015 seeking to absolve him from any contributory negligence and to enhance the compensation amount. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a Mason, earning Rs.15,000/- per month and not possessing of driving licence by him cannot automatically result in presuming any contributory negligence on his part. In this regard, he has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SUDHIR KUMAR RANA V/S SURINDER SINGH AND OTHERS1. In the said judgment, it was held that the contributory negligence on the ground that the deceased was driving the vehicle without a valid driving licence is unsustainable. The actual contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner need to be established without reference to the non-possession of a driving licence. It is further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation amount so far as 'loss of income during laid up period' is concerned. 1 (2005) 12 SCC 436 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31229 MFA No. 5676 of 2015 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and there is no need for any enhancement. He also defence the contributory negligence fastened upon the appellant. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the non-possession of the driving licence cannot automatically result in fastening negligence on the part of the petitioner. If at all, the petitioner was driving two wheeler with all caution, then the actionable negligence cannot be attributed to him. Evidently, the Police papers disclose that there was no such actionable negligence which could have been fastened upon the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned judgment insofar as it attributes 25% contributory negligence to the petitioner is unsustainable in law. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioner has sustained about 06 injuries and 05 of them were simple in nature. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31229 MFA No. 5676 of 2015 Except the fracture of the left zygomatic arch, all other injuries were simple in nature. Obviously, the fracture of zygomatic arch would not result in any functional disability to the petitioner. So also, there is no material to show about the functional disability. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all the heads is adequate and there is no relief of enhancement of the same. However, the Tribunal failed to note that the petitioner is also entitled for compensation under the head of 'loss of income during laid up period'. Considering the nature of the injuries, it can safely be said that he was unable to resume his duties at least for a period of 1½ months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has to be awarded to the petitioner towards the same. 9. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part absolving the petitioner from any contributory negligence and enhancing the compensation amount by Rs.10,000/- is Rs.1,10,000/- in total. Hence, the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31229 MFA No. 5676 of 2015 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.35,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.75,000/-) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit before the Tribunal. (iii) Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the same within a period of six weeks from date. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10