- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35417 MFA No. 524 of 2020 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. 524 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI NAGARAJA S., S/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT H NO.17, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, BSK III STAGE KATHRIGUPPE BANGALORE - 560 085 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DHANALAKSHMI K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BHARATHI G., W/O GOVINDASWAMY R/AT NO.291, OMKARA, 3RD MAIN,VASANTH VALLABHA NAGAR BWSSB, PIPELINE ROAD, S.B.PURA BANGALORE – 560 061 2. TATA AIG GEN. INS. CO. LTD., NO.69, 3RD FLOOR, J .P. AND DEVI JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE -560 052 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.P.VENKATAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O/DATED: 31/01/2022- NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3825/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35417 MFA No. 524 of 2020 AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-24), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.3825/2017 dated 30.06.2018 by the XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge and XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate & MACT, Bengaluru, whereby the Tribunal had awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- and fixed the contributory negligence at 25% on the claimant and 75% on the offending vehicle, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation as well as questioning the contributory negligence fixed on him. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 25.06.2017 at about 4.30 to 5.00 p.m., he was riding his motorcycle slowly on the left side by following all the traffic rules, when he reached near II main road, near 36th Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35417 MFA No. 524 of 2020 Bengaluru, at that time, the driver of the car was coming with high speed, in rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and dashed against the claimant’s motorcycle. Due to the impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. After the accident, he was shifted to Shekar hospital wherein he took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 4 days. 3. Coming to the aspect of negligence, the Tribunal had considered that there is contributory negligence on behalf of the claimant fixed at 25%. For this, the Tribunal had given a finding that though the contents of Ex.P1 to P9 discloses the rash or negligence on the part of the driver of the car, but the sketch got marked by PW1 support that the accident occurred in the middle of the road. As per sketch, the said road is a double road through which the vehicles passed in two ways divided by a line in the middle to bifurcate the two ways vehicles coming and going and vehicles separately. Admittedly, accident place is a junction connecting 4 roads. The motorcycle of the claimant shown to be coming from left side of the road west to east and the driver of the car shown to be going in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35417 MFA No. 524 of 2020 around in South to North direction and was almost left the junction, at that time the alleged accident occurred. The police documents are not challenged by any of the parties. Thus, the contents of the police documents particularly sketch of the accident spot and oral evidence of PW1 and RW1 prima-facie establishes the rash and negligence on the part of both claimant and driver of the car. If they tried to move slowly and cautiously, the accident would have not occurred. Responsibility was on both the rider and driver to drive the vehicles carefully on their permitted lanes and they should carefully observe the movement of vehicles, which is apparently ignored and traffic rules are violated by them. In the present case, accident is not disputed. The involvement of the vehicles in the accident is also not disputed. From the police documents, it is seen that, the jurisdictional police have registered the criminal case against the driver of the car and after investigation police have filed the charge sheet against him. The police documents have not been disputed by the respondents. The sketch produced at Ex.P.5 is also one of the documents forms part of the charge sheet which clearly depicts the sheer negligence on part of the both claimant and the driver of the car. The materials produced by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35417 MFA No. 524 of 2020 both the parties goes to show that the driver of the car and rider of the motor cycle contributed negligence to an extent of 75% and 25% respectively for the occurrence of the accident. 4. Then coming to the compensation, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation as per the table given below: Sl. No. Heads Rs. Compensation amount awarded 1. Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- 2. Attendant, conveyance and other incidental expenses Rs. 15,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs. 1,25,152/- 4. Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 16,000/- 5. Loss of future earnings Rs. 1,44,000/- 6. Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- 7. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 3,60,152/- 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant submits that the police after a full-fledged investigation had filed the charge sheet, the Tribunal looking at the rough sketch cannot come to the conclusion that as these documents are part of the charge sheet and the same is not questioned, the liability cannot be fixed on the claimant. It is submitted that the Tribunal without any basis had held that there is contributory negligence. In the facts and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35417 MFA No. 524 of 2020 circumstances, where the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the car, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the contributory negligence. When it comes to the compensation, it is submitted that under the head of pain and suffering, the amount that is awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. It is further submitted that the Tribunal had taken the income at Rs.8,000/- per month, but ought to have taken the income at Rs.11,000/- per month. Then, coming to the future medical expenses, the doctor had stated that the claimant require Rs.40,000/-, but the Tribunal had not granted the reasonable compensation. It is further submitted that the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and the same needs to be enhanced. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered the sketch which is part of the charge sheet and rightly held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. In fact, the apportionment of 25% on the claimant is on the lower and it ought to have been 50%. It is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35417 MFA No. 524 of 2020 submitted that even the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is called for. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. First coming to the aspect of negligence, this Court is not able to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as the finding given by the Tribunal. The police after a full- fledged investigation and after considering all the aspects had filed the charge sheet against the owner of the vehicle. In those circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have held that there is negligence on the part of the claimant. Considering the fact that already the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the car, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. 8. Then coming to the compensation, under the head of pain and suffering, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant i.e., fracture shaft tibia + fibula compound, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of pain and suffering. As far as the loss of income during the laid up period is concerned, as the accident had occurred in the year - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35417 MFA No. 524 of 2020 2017, considering the income at Rs.11,000/- per month, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. Towards loss of future income, this Court is granting an amount of (11,000X12X15X10/100)= Rs.1,98,000/-. Towards future medical expenses, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Towards loss of amenities, attendant, conveyance and other incidental expenses and towards medical expenses, the Tribunal had rightly granted the amount and no interference is called for. 9. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another1, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. 10. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Rs. Compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal Compensation amount awarded by this Court 1. Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- 50,000/- 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35417 MFA No. 524 of 2020 2. Attendant, conveyance and other incidental expenses Rs. 15,000/- 15,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs. 1,25,152/- 1,25,152/- 4. Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 16,000/- 44,000/- 5. Loss of future earnings Rs. 1,44,000/- 1,98,000/- 6. Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- 20,000/- 7. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000/- 20,000/- 8. Legal expenses Rs. - 10,000/- Total Rs. 3,60,152/- 4,82,152/- Enhanced amount Rs. 1,22,000/- 11. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.4,82,152/-. 12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.3,60,152/- to Rs.4,82,152/- and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii) The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35417 MFA No. 524 of 2020 iii) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall pay the compensation. iv) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. v) 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. vi) On 23.04.2024, the delay of 392 days is condoned by this Court on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest in case of enhancement. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period. vii) No costs. viii) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11