- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27275 MFA No. 7118 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7118 OF 2014(MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., JEWEL PLAZA, 1ST FLOOR MARUTHI VEETHIKA, UDUPI-576101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR SANTHOSH BELCHADA S/O NAGAPPA BELCHADA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O NEAR DURGA PARAMESHWARI TEMPLE, KEMMANNU BADANIDIYOOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101 2. MANSOOR S/O HAMEED AGED 46 YEARS R/O NO.211, KELARKALBETTU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH M. HEBBALLI FOR SRI NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATES FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27275 MFA No. 7118 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.229/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,39,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurer (respondent No.2) against the judgment and award dated 27.08.2014, passed in MVC No.229/2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Addl.MACT, Udupi (for short `the Tribunal'). 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 21.11.2011 at about 9.00 p.m., claimant was riding the bicycle from Kemmannu towards his house and when he reached near Kemmannu Church, the offending goods tempo bearing Registration No.KA-20-6292 driven by its driver in a rash - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27275 MFA No. 7118 of 2014 and negligent manner came towards right side of road and hit the claimant's bicycle. As a result, the claimant sustained fractures. He was shifted to KMC Hospital, Manipal where he was treated as inpatient for 14 days. He had spent substantial amount towards medical expenses and has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he sought compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is insurer of the offending goods vehicle. Respondent No.1 did not contest the matter before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 filed its written statement denying the contents of the claim petition and denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal on the basis of the rival contentions of the parties framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant to prove his case, examined two witnesses as PWs-1 and 2 and marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-10. The respondent No.2 examined two - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27275 MFA No. 7118 of 2014 witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and marked documents as Exs.R1 to R3. 7. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and appreciating the materials available on record held that accident occurred due to contributory negligence of claimant as well as the driver of the offending vehicle. Their contribution is in the ratio of 8% and 92% respectively. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month, age of the claimant as 30 years, applied the multiplier of `17' and awarded the compensation as follows: Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and Sufferings 90,000 Medical Expenses 10,000 Attendant expenses, Nourishment, Conveynace (9000+3000+1000) 13,000 Loss of income 20,000 Loss of future earning capacity 91,800 Future Medical Expenses 15,000 Loss of amenities 20,000 Total 2,59,800 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27275 MFA No. 7118 of 2014 8. The appeal is filed mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the Tribunal failed to consider that the contributory negligence of the rider of the bicycle was 50% and secondly, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license to drive the said class of vehicle. 9. I have heard the arguments and perused the materials placed before this court. 10. There is no serious dispute regarding fact of the accident and the claimant has not challenged the award passed by the Tribunal. The dispute in respect of the contributory negligence is to be addressed. 11. The claimant was rider of a bicycle. In the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal held that, since the bicycle had no light at the time of the incident, the rider had contributed to the accident. PW.1, in his cross-examination, stated that he was riding his bicycle on the left side of the road. The width of the road at the spot - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27275 MFA No. 7118 of 2014 of the incident was approximately 15 feet, and it was a straight stretch, not a curve. Therefore, even if a pedestrian or a cyclist was riding without a light, it cannot, by itself, be considered negligence or contributory to the accident. The offending goods tempo had head lights. It was the duty of the driver of the said vehicle to carefully drive his vehicle. The way in which accident occurred indicates that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the goods tempo. The Tribunal, in its wisdom, assessed the contributory negligence of the bicycle rider at 8%, which has not been challenged and, therefore, does not warrant reconsideration. However, the contention of the insurer that rider of the bicycle was equally negligent in riding the vehicle and causing the accident is not believable at any stretch of imagination. In a detailed cross-examination of PW.1, nothing of that sought was brought out to accept it. The driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted for the incident in question. Therefore, the riding of a bicycle without headlight cannot - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27275 MFA No. 7118 of 2014 be considered as contribution to the cause of accident to an extent of 50%. Therefore, the said submission of the insurer is not tenable. 12. The question regarding amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not seriously disputed. On re-appreciating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has properly considered the case and awarded a just and reasonable amount of compensation. After deducting 8% from the total assessed compensation on account of contributory negligence, it directed the respondents to pay the remaining amount to the claimant. The said findings do not call any further interference. 13. The main ground of appeal is, the offending driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license, still the Tribunal held that the insurer shall pay the said amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The said question is not res integra and has been discussed in a catena of judgments, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27275 MFA No. 7118 of 2014 Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 and in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rambha Devi and Others reported in (2025)3 SCC 95, the driver authorised to drive non- transport vehicle can drive a transport vehicle of same class without endorsement, even in such event, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the appellant-insurer is liable to pay the said amount of compensation. The said ground of appeal is also not tenable. 14. The appellant also disputed regarding rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. 15. The Tribunal at its wisdom, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has awarded the interest at its discretion. This Court is not inclined to reconsider the same. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27275 MFA No. 7118 of 2014 16. In the aforesaid discussions, the following: O R D E R (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 27.08.2014, passed in MVC No.229/2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Addl.MACT, Udupi, stands confirmed. (iii) Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant. (iv) Send back TCR to Tribunal with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26