- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2753 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHABAZ KHAN S/O SHAZAD SHAIKH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.239, 9TH CROSS, MAJID ROAD, J K PURA ADUGODI, BENGALURU - 571 114. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVA SWAMY S/O KARADA GOUDARU NO.314/J, JMG RAILWAY QUARTERS NEAR VINAYAKA VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE BENGALURU - 560 023 2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSU. CO, LTD BY ITS MANAGER NO.4/5, 3RD FLOOR, S V ARCADE, BILEKALLI MAIN ROAD, OPP TO BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, IIMB POST, BENGALURU - 540 076 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.791/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, [SCCH-20], DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by claimant/appellant against the judgment and award dated 04.01.2019 in MVC No.791/2018 passed by V Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘Tribunal’) whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimant is dismissed. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, injuries sustained are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal only on the premise that as on the date of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 accident, the appellant was not having valid Driving Licence despite answering issue No.1 i.e., rash and negligent driving against the driver of the offending car. 3. Heard Sri. Gurudev Prasad K.T learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. A.N.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. Vide order dated 07.12.2022, the notice of this appeal on respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 4. Sri. Gurudev Prasad K.T, learned counsel appearing for the appellant with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal framed issue No. 1 on the point of rash and negligent driving and causing accident by the driver of the offending car. The said issue was answered in affirmative holding that the driver of the offending car is responsible for the accident since he has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 5. Having answered issue No. 1 in affirmative, the Tribunal has committed serious error while observing that the appellant herein was minor and at the date of accident he was riding the motorcycle without valid driving license as such, adverse inference was taken against the respondent No. 1, holding that the wrong doer is not entitled for any compensation. In this regard, fastened contributory negligence at 50% on the part of the petitioner. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner being a minor is wrong doer as he was riding the motorcycle as on the date of accident without any license presumed that he did not have proper skill to ride two wheeler. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation to the petitioner and dismissed the claim petition, in its entirety. 6. Mr. Prasad further argues that the appellant has suffered fracture of shaft of right tibia with compartment syndrome. He was an inpatient for a period of 4 days. He has underwent surgery for insertion of implants. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 Doctor, who has been examined as PW-3 has assessed the particular limb disability at 30.5% and has stated to the whole body, it is 15.25%. The year of accident was 2018 and as per the income fixed under the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, insofar as unskilled labour is concerned is at Rs.12,500/- per month. In view of the same, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 7. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri. A.N.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company vehemently submits that though the Tribunal has answered issue No.1 in affirmative, but at paragraph Nos.14 and 18, the Tribunal particularly has stated that the appellant was the rider of the motorcycle as on the date of the accident and was minor in the absence of appropriate driving license having no skills to ride the motorcycle and is a wrong doer. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 8. The Tribunal has considered the same and has attributed 50% negligence to the claimant. Referring to the findings of the Tribunal at paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 20. Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy, submits that the finding of the Tribunal is reasonable in the factual background and does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. However, he submits that in event this court is inclined to interfere with the judgement and award instead of remanding the matter, considering 50% contributory negligence as stated by the Tribunal, compensation may be awarded. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers as well as trial Court records. 10. The points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are as follows:- i. Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition in toto, while answering issue - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 No.1 with regard to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the car in affirmative? ii. Whether the Tribunal is justified in not awarding any compensation having answered issue No.2 partly in affirmative regarding entitlement of compensation? iii. Whether the appellant has made out any case for awarding compensation as claimed in the claim petition? 11. My answer to the above points for consideration are as under:- i. Point No.1 : In the Negative ii. Point No.2 : In the Negative iii. Point No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative for the following reasons:- 12. The Tribunal has framed following issues, which reads as under:- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 i. Whether the petitioner proves that on 23.01.2018 at about 04.10 p.m., when the petitioner was riding the Scooter bearing Reg No.KA-01-HX-0510, near 11th main, 12th Cross, Wilsongarden, Bangalore, at that time, one car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-1972 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's scooter, due to forced impact, petitioner fell down and sustained several grievous injures? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? iii. What order or award? 13. To substantiate their claim, the appellant as well as Insurance Company examined respective witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and RW-1 and produced Ex.P-1 to Ex.P- 13 and Ex.R-1 i.e., Insurance policy. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 14. The Tribunal after considering the entire material placed before it answered the issues framed in the following manner. Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative; Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative; Issue No.3 : As per final order. 15. Having answered the issues as stated above, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the entire claim petition on the premise that the rider of the motorcycle was a minor and not having any license to ride the motorcycle. He is a wrongdoer and did not have any skill to ride the motorcycle and is solely responsible for the accident. Accordingly, an adverse inference has been taken and dismissed the entire claim petition. 16. Sri. Gurudev Prasad K.T., learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (4) SCC 511 in the case of Meera Devi and another -vs- Himachal Pradesh Road - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 Transport Corporation and Others, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider the case wherein, the person, who died in the accident, was riding the motorcycle was under 18 years and not having any insurance or any license to ride the motorcycle and responsible for contributory negligence, which has been considered by the concerned High Court and reduced the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No. 10 has come to the conclusion that in respect of contributory negligence, there must be cogent evidence. In the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, there was no specific evidence to prove that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the deceased student. Considering the factual background the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the absence of cogent evidence to prove, the plea of contributory negligence, the doctrine of common law cannot be applicable. Having held so, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the reasoning's of the High Court - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 concerned, and restored the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 17. The facts in the case on hand are similar to the facts of the case in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The Tribunal having answered issue No.1 in the affirmative holding that the driver of the car is responsible for the accident however, erred in law to hold that the injured is responsible and wrongdoer been further erred in inflicting adverse inference on him. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SUDHIR KUMAR RANA VS. SURINDER SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 12 SCC 436, wherein, at paragraph No.9 of the judgment has held that mere no license will not give a right to the Insurance Company to raise the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the injured or deceased in the absence of any evidence of rash - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 and negligent driving or riding on the part of the deceased or injured. 19. In the case on hand, there is no evidence produced to show that the appellant is responsible for the accident. The police records are against the driver of the car. The materials placed before the Tribunal clearly points out that it is the driver of the car, who is rash and negligent while driving the car and sole reason for the accident resulting in injuries to the appellant. 20. Considering overall facts and circumstances, the materials placed in evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed serious error in dismissing the entire petition only on the ground that the appellant was not possessing any driving licence and he was minor. In these circumstances, the said reasoning of the Tribunal is perverse and accordingly, set aside, holding that the appellant is entitled for the compensation. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 21. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company has argued that there is 50% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. But in the absence of any cogent evidence as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Meera Devi' case stated supra, contributory negligence on the part of the appellant cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is not considered on the other liable to be rejected and accordingly, rejected. 22. The injury sustained by the appellant in view of the Trial Court Records are not in dispute by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 -Insurance Company. Having taken note of the injuries and the period of inpatient as well as the treatment taken, the appellant is entitled for compensation. Instead of remanding the matter only on the quantum of compensation, the same is considered since the entire records are available before this Court. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 23. As stated above, the appellant has sustained fracture of shaft of right tibia. A Doctor, who has treated the appellant is examined as PW-3. He has assessed disability at 30.5% to the particular limb. Considering the case that the appellant was 17 years as on the date of accident and the year being 2018, the income is taken at Rs.12,500/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The appropriate multiplier applicable is '18'. The disability is taken at 10% to the whole body. In view of the income stated supra and on re-determination, ‘LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME DUE TO DISABILITY’ comes to: Rs.2,70,000/- (Rs.12,500 x 12 x 18 x 10%) 24. As per the medical bill at Ex.P-9 which is not seriously disputed by the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company either before the Tribunal or before this Court, the appellant has incurred a sum of Rs.75,000/- which is produced as per the actual bills. The same is considered - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 and a sum of Rs.75,000/- is awarded under the head 'medical expenses'. 25. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘Pain and sufferings’. 26. In view of the accidental injuries, the claimant would have taken rest atleast for a period of 3 months. Therefore, by taking income at Rs.12,500/- per month and calculating the laid up period for 3 months, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500 x 3 months), under the head ‘Loss of income during laid up period’. 27. Towards ‘Attendant, Conveyance and nourishment charges' a sum of Rs.5,000/-, is awarded. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 28. Considering the nature of injuries, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head 'loss of amenities'. 29. In summary, the total compensation determined by this Court under various heads is as follows: 1. Pain and Sufferings : Rs. 40,000/- 2. Medical expenses : Rs. 75,000/- 3. Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges : Rs. 5,000/- 4. Loss of income during laid up period (12,500 x 3) : Rs. 37,500/- 5. Loss of amenities : Rs. 25,000/- 6. Loss of future earnings (12,500 x 10 x 18 x 10/100) : Rs. 2,70,000/- Total : Rs. 4,52,500 30. The appellant/claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,52,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 31. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40123 MFA No. 2753 of 2019 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.791/2018 dated 04.01.2019 by the V Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set aside. The claim petition allowed in part. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,52,500/- along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. iii) Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company shall deposit entire amount along with accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv) Upon deposit, entire amount shall be released in favour of appellant on proper identification. v) No order as to costs. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2