- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15327 MFA No. 104726 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104726 OF 2019 (MV) BETWEEN: SHRI SANGAPPA S/O. SIDRAMAPPA MADAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL, R/O. TIMMAPUR, S.N. VILLAGE, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587206. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O. GURUMURTHAYYA SARAGANACHARI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O : SARAGANACHARI, BASAVANAGAR, MUDDEBIHAL-586212, DIST: VIJAYAPUR. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT-VI, BELAGAVI IN M.V.C.NO.1009/2018 DATED 02-08-2018 AND FIX THE ENTIRE NEGLIGENCE ON THE CAR DRIVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15327 MFA No. 104726 of 2019 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) 1. Heard Sri.Hanumant R. Latur, learned counsel for the appellant, who appears before this Court physically. Also heard Sri. C. V. Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.2, who appears through Video Conference. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI, Belagavi, in MVC No.1009/2018 dated 02.08.2019. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. Making his submission, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appeal is filed on two grounds. Firstly, attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is improper and secondly, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15327 MFA No. 104726 of 2019 the compensation granted by the Tribunal is grossly low. 4. Arguing on the first point, learned counsel for the appellant states that, having found that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car which is involved in the accident and deciding issue No.1 to that effect by the Tribunal, the Tribunal while discussing with the quantum of amount that is to be awarded as compensation, attributed contributory negligence to an extent of 25% on part of the appellant, which is improper. Learned counsel submits that charge sheet is laid against the driver of the car only, but the said fact was not appreciated by the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, so far as the negligence aspect is concerned, seeks the Court to pass necessary orders in that regard. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15327 MFA No. 104726 of 2019 6. As per the version of the appellant, on 31.08.2017, while he was proceeding on a motorcycle and was riding the motorcycle on Belagavi-Bagalkot Road, a car bearing registration No.KA-28/N-7508, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, dashed against his motorcycle, due to which the accident occurred. 7. It is not in dispute that, basing on the contents of Exhibit-P1 - FIR and Exhibit P1(a) - Complaint, police investigated into the case and finally laid charge sheet as found in Exhibit P5, holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car alone. 8. With an observation that the appellant was not possessing a valid driving licence to ride two-wheeler as on the date of accident, the Tribunal attributed contributory negligence to an extent of 25% on part of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15327 MFA No. 104726 of 2019 the appellant as found in paragraph 20 of the impugned order. 9. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, while dealing with the issue whether the appellant proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car in question, the Tribunal answered the said issue in affirmative, holding that the appellant succeeded in establishing that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. Having said so, the Tribunal ought not to have attributed contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. 10. In case the Tribunal was of the opinion that there is contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, it should not have decided Issue No.1 in affirmative and in favour of the appellant herein holding that his - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15327 MFA No. 104726 of 2019 version about the manner of happening of accident is justifiable. 11. Only because the rider of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time, he cannot be held to be responsible for the accident to occur or that he contributed for the accident to occur, without there being any substantive proof with regard to his negligence and that absence of driving licence has caused the accident to occur. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal is not justified in attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. 12. Coming to the compensation awarded, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation towards ‘pain and suffering’, Rs.21,800/- towards ‘medical expenses’, Rs.1,250/- towards ‘food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges’, and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15327 MFA No. 104726 of 2019 Rs.7,500/- towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’. 13. Having gone through the discussion of the Tribunal at para 18 of the impugned order, in the light of the evidence of PW2, this Court is of the view that the observation of the Tribunal that the appellant is not entitled for any compensation towards ‘loss of future earnings’ is not on proper lines. 14. It is the evidence of PW2 that the appellant sustained dislocation of left hip joint and longitudinal fracture of right temporal bone. He stated that the longitudinal fracture of right temporal bone left the appellant with 10% disability and the fracture and dislocation of left hip joint left him with disability of 35%. On what basis he assessed the disability is also spoken by PW2. Considering the evidence of PW2, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal ought to have taken the disability in respect of the whole body as 10%. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15327 MFA No. 104726 of 2019 15. As per the contents of Exhibit P4 – wound certificate, the appellant was aged around 51 years by the date of accident. The age as mentioned in Exhibit P4 is not in dispute. Therefore, taking the age of the appellant as 51 years by the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 is 11. 16. The appellant failed to produce any proof with regard to his occupation and earnings as regards the date of accident. As per his version, as an agriculturist, he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But as pleaded by learned counsel for the appellant, for the relevant period, i.e., for the year 2017, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad, is taking the notional income as Rs.10,250/- per month, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.10,250/- per month. 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15327 MFA No. 104726 of 2019 17. Therefore, on taking the notional income as Rs.10,250/- per month, on applying the appropriate multiplier 11 and the disability in respect of the whole body as 10%, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards ‘loss of future earnings’ comes to Rs.1,35,300/- (Rs.10,250 × 12 × 11 × 10%). 18. The appellant admittedly sustained two grievous injuries i.e., dislocation of left hip joint and longitudinal fracture of right temporal bone. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant could not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 4 months. Thus, ‘loss of earnings during laid up period’ comes to Rs.41,000/- (Rs.10,250 × 4). 19. Also subjecting the entire evidence to scrutiny, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to compensation under the following heads: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15327 MFA No. 104726 of 2019 Head of Compensation Amount (Rs.) Pain and suffering 40,000.00 Food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 7,500.00 Medical expenditure 21,800.00 Loss of future earnings 1,35,300.00 Loss of income during laid-up period 41,000.00 Loss of amenities in life 10,000.00 Total 2,55,600.00 20. The Tribunal held that the compensation that can be granted is only Rs.60,550/-. However, the aforementioned discussion makes it clear that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,55,600/- as compensation. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following order: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. Compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI, Belagavi, through orders in MVC - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15327 MFA No. 104726 of 2019 No.1009/2018 dated 02.08.2019, is enhanced to Rs.2,55,600/-. iii. Contributory negligence attributed on the part of the appellant is set aside. iv. Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded. v. The entire sum awarded as compensation carries interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. vi. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. vii. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36