- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7390 OF 2023 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1596 OF 2023 IN MFA No. 7390/2023 BETWEEN: KUM.JAYASHREE K.Y., D/O YOGAPPA T., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O HERUR, KUNCHABYLE POST, SRINGERI TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHIVASHANKAR S/O VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, DRIVER R/O THEERTHAMUTTUR, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, (DRIVER OF THE MOOKAMBIKA BUS NO.KA14/A2466) 2. SRI. A. LAXMINARAYA BHAT S/O ANANTHA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OWNER, MOOKAMBIKA BUS, R/O 146 D BLOCK, GOPALA GOWDA EXTENSION, SHIMOGA, (OWNER OF THE MOOKAMBIKA Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 BUS NO. KA14/A2466) 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 1ST FLOOR, ABOVE HARSHA, S.S.COMPLEX, BANGALORE HONNAVAR ROAD, (B.H ROAD)SHIMOGA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 V/O/DATED: 09/02/2024- NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 302/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R. PURA, ITINERATE, SRINGERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 1596/2023 BETWEEN: 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 1ST PLOT, ABOVE HARSHA, S S COMPLEX, BENGALURU HONNAVARA ROAD, (B H ROAD), SHIVAMOGGA -577 201 ALSO AT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001 NOW REPRESENTED BY ASST. MANAGER, LEGAL ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 AND: 1. KUM. JAYASHREE K.Y., D/O YOGAAPPA T, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HERUR, MUNCHABYLE POST, SRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT- 577 139 2. SHIVASHANKAR S/O VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF THEERTHAMUTTUR, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMAOGGA DISTRICT -577 432 3. LAXMINARAYANA BHAT A S/O ANANTHA BHAT AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO 146, D BLOCK, GOPALA GOWDA EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA -577 201 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 V/O/DATED:12/04/2023- NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.302/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R.PURA, ITINERATE AT SRINGERI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.21,15,330/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.302/2020 dated 23.11.2022 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, N.R.Pura, Itinerate, Sringeri, whereby the Tribunal had awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.21,15,330/-, both the claimant as well as the insurance company are before this Court. The Claimant’s appeal is MFA No.7390/2023 and the insurance Company’s appeal is MFA No.1596/2023. 2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs for the injury sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 29.06.2019 at 05.40 p.m. when he was going on his scooter, when he reached near Government School at that time the bus was going in front of the scooty, the driver of the bus showed signal to the claimant to overtake the bus and go forward. That as soon the claimant tried to overtake the bus the driver of the bus increased the speed of the bus and took slight right turn which hit the mirror of the scooty in which the claimant was proceeding. Due to the impact, the claimant and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. The charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus and the tribunal has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 held that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and Tribunal has awarded the compensation as per the table given below. SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Pain and agony : Rs. 80,000/- 2. Medical Expenses : Rs. 2,04,930/- 3. Food, Attendant, Nourishment and conveyance charges : Rs. 92,000/- 4. Loss of income during the laid up period : Rs. 36,000/- 5. Loss of future income : Rs. 16,52,400/- 6. Loss of amenities in life : Rs. 50,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 21,15,330/- 3. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, tribunal had failed to consider the same. It is submitted that when looking at the sketch, looking at the width of the road where there was no space, the rider of the scooty/ claimant had overtaken the bus, if the rider been careful, the accident wouldn’t have happened as such there is contributory - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 negligence and this aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. He had relied on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Sreemanti Vs. Krishna Deva Madival1 and he particularly relied on paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 40, 42, & 48 reads thus: (25.) AT this juncture, it May be noted that the general Rule is, vehicle should be driven at a speed, which enables a driver to stop within the limits of his vision, particularly having regard to the weather and state of road and if the driver does not exercise these precautions while driving the vehicle, his failure to do so will very likely result in the driver being held in whole or in part, responsible for the collision. In fact, in Rider v. Rider, (1973) QB 505, their lordships have held that while driving the motor vehicles on highways, it is folly not to anticipate folly in others. Same has been even Reiterated in Rae v. Dumbarton council, 1973 SLT (notes) 23. (26.) IT need not be said that the test of negligence lies in default to exercise the ordinary care and caution, which is expected of a prudent man in the circumstances of a given case. The duty to exercise such a care and caution including reasonable use of his faculties of sight and intelligence to observe and appreciate danger or threatened danger of injury is undoubtedly on the driver of an automobile. If he fails to do so and such failure is the proximate cause of the injury or death, he is guilty of negligence. In other words, the test is, whether the driver could, by exercising normal diligence and (27) SO far as contributory negligence is concerned, all that is required is, claimant should have failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought 1 LAWS (KAR)-2004-6-37 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he might hurt himself and in his reckonings he must take into account the possibility of others being careless. A responsible careful driver does not always assume that other users of the road, whether drivers of others, will behave with reasonable care and he guards against the negligence of others when experience shows such negligence should be common. (30.) IT is true that the corporation has not taken the plea of contributory negligence, but, that does not prevent the court or the tribunal to hold so, when things speak for themselves, leading to an inference about it. In the case of Sharada B4ai v. Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn., 1988 ACJ 490 (karnataka), a coordinate bench of this court has also held that the contributory negligence can be and very often is inferred from the evidence adduced already on the claimants' behalf or from the perspective facts, either admitted or found established, on a balance of probabilities in the case. (31.) FURTHER, in my opinion, in the present case, the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' can be applied because it is admitted by the claimants-appellants themselves that when the bus has suddenly stopped, the motorcyclist, who was coming behind the bus could not control the vehicle and thereby dashed against the bus. So, according to me, to some extent at least, motorcyclist has also attributed for the accident and as such, I respectfully disagree with the view expressed by my learned senior brother that the fault for the accident entirely lies with the driver of the bus alone as, in my opinion, the deceased and the driver of the bus have attributed to the extent of 25 per cent and 75 per cent respectively for the accident. Therefore, my finding on issue Nos. 1 and 2 framed by the tribunal are recorded accordingly. (40.) ON behalf of respondent corporation, it was on the other hand argued that deceased who was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 following the bus on the motor cycle was under an obligation to maintain a safe distance from the bus going ahead of him to ensure that in the event of the bus being stopped suddenly the motorcyclist does/not crash into it. That was according to respondent corporation even otherwise a well recognised Rule applicable to vehicular traffic on the roads. Inasmuch as the accident had occurred on account of the failure on the part of the motorcyclist to maintain a safe distance from the bus and his inability to control the motor cycle when the bus driver applied the brakes, the accident could not be said to have been caused by any rash and negligent act of the driver. It was submitted that even when a plea of contributory negligence had not been taken in the objections filed on behalf of the corporation, the tribunal could upon proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties record a finding whether or not and if so to what extent had the drivers of the two vehicles contributed to the occurrence of the accident. The fact that the motorcyclist coming from behind had failed to maintain a safe-distance and had thereby failed to act as a prudent man placed in his position would have acted necessarily implied that the motorcyclist had also contributed to the occurrence of the accident in an equal measure. (42.) THAT apart, the question which the tribunal was called upon to answer and which arises even for the consideration of this court is whether the accident had taken place on account of the fault of the driver of the bus as alleged by the claimants or on account of the fault of the motorcyclist as stated by the respondent corporation. While examining the said question, the court could in my opinion legitimately come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place neither on account of the fault of the driver of the bus nor that of the deceased motorcyclist but on account of the contributory negligence of both the drivers involved in the accident. The absence of a specific defence based on contributory negligence could not preclude the court from finding the driver of the bus guilty of negligence and the deceased having contributed to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 the occurrence of the accident to the extent the evidence on record established the same. It is trite that an argument based on contributory negligence has to be substantiated by the party who advances that argument, but it is equally true that for discharging that burden, the party concerned need not lead evidence. As observed by the division bench of this court in Sharada Bai v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn., 1988 ACJ 490 (karnataka), contributory negligence can be and very often is inferred from the evidence adduced the claimants' behalf or from the perceptive facts either admitted or found established, on a balance of probabilities in the case. The absence of a specific plea May not therefore be conclusive of the matter nor can the argument that the deceased motorcyclist had contributed to the occurrence of the accident be rejected summarily only because a specific plea in that regard, was not raised in the objections. (48.) THERE was yet another angle which the claimants sought to highlight in an attempt to show that accident had occurred entirely due to negligence of the driver of the bus. It was argued on the strength of the deposition of shekar harigouda patil, pw 2, that the bus had overtaken the motor cycle and was then suddenly stopped without giving an opportunity to the motorcyclist to maintain what could be said to be a safe distance. The deposition of shekar harigouda patil, pw 2, no doubt suggests that the motorcyclist was going ahead of the bus and that the bus overtook the same and then suddenly stopped without giving any signal. This version is not, however, in tune with the case set-up by the claimants in the claim petition. The version given in the claim petition on the contrary was that the bus was going ahead of the motor cycle but when the same was suddenly stopped in the middle of the road, the motorcyclist could not apply the brakes or control the motor cycle with the result that he crashed into the bus from behind fatally injuring himself. There is no indication in the claim petition that the accident had - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 occurred on account of the bus overtaking the motor cycle and suddenly stopping without any signal. The version given by shekar hari gouda patil, pw 2, is therefore an obvious improvement which the court shall have to ignore while recording a finding as to contributory negligence of the two vehicles. Relying on these judgments, it is submitted that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and the Tribunal had failed to consider the same and fixed the contributory negligence on the claimant. When it is the case of the claimant that he is earning Rs.15,000/- at the time of evidence it is stated that he was earning an amount of Rs.18,000/- and the Tribunal had considered that income, why such a statement is made in the claim petition, no explanation is forthcoming. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have taken income at Rs.18,000/-. Even under the other heads also the amount that is awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that Tribunal had erred in granting reasonable compensation under the head of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and hence compensation needs to be enhanced on all counts. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. It is submitted that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant but no evidence is adduced by the insurance company. The charge sheet is filed against the driver of the Bus. The evidence of the claimant is that the Driver has signalled to overtake the bus and later driver took a slight right turn. If the insurance company is disproving the same, they should have established the same by way of adducing some evidence and admittedly there is no evidence adduced by them. There is no dispute about the law laid down in the above referred judgments, but the same has to be applied to the facts of the case and those judgments do not apply to the facts of the present case where the insurance company has failed to discharge the burden caste upon them. Hence in that view of the matter this Court is of the view that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and there is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. 6. Then coming to the compensation, considering the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant, under the head of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 pain and suffering, this court is granting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Under the head of Medical Expenses the tribunal had rightly granted an amount of Rs.2,04,930/- hence, no interference is called for. Towards Food, and Attendant Charges, this court is granting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and towards Loss of income during the laid up period considering hospitalization (Rs.15,000/-x5) this Court is granting an amount of Rs.75,000/-. Towards Loss of marriage prospects this Court is granting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and under the head of Loss of amenities this Court is granting an amount of Rs.75,000/-. Then under the head of Loss of Future Income taking income at Rs.15,000/-, 40% of future prospects is 6,000/- (15,000/- + 6,000/-) i.e., Rs.21,000/-, this court is granting an amount of (Rs.21,000/- x12x17x24/100 =Rs.10,28,160/-) Rs.10,28,160/- towards loss of future income. 7. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another2, the claimant is entitled for an amount of 2 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. Altogether the claimant is entitled for compensation for an amount Rs.16,93,090/- . 8. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 80,000/- 1,00,000/- 2. Medical Expenses : Rs. 2,04,930 2,04,930/- 3. Food, Attendant & Nourishment charges : Rs. 92,000/- 1,00,000/- 4. Loss of income during the laid up period : Rs. 36,000/- 75,000/- 5. Loss of marriage prospects : Rs. 00/- 1,00,000/- 6. Loss of Future Income : Rs. 16,52,400/- 10,28,160/- 7. Loss of Amenities : Rs. 50,000/- 75,000/- 8. Legal Expenses : Rs. 00/- 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 21,15,330/- 16,93,090/- i. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company MFA.No.1596/2023 is partly allowed by reducing the compensation from an amount of Rs.21,15,330/- to Rs.16,93,090/- and also by reducing the interest from 9% to 6% per annum - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35223 MFA No. 7390 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 1596 of 2023 and the appeal of the claimant MFA.No.7390/2023 is dismissed. ii. Insurance company shall deposit the remaining amount if any within eight weeks. iii. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the tribunal. iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. v. No costs. vi. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23