- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2295 OF 2021 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5440 OF 2021 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 2295/2021 BETWEEN: SRI HANUMANTHA SHETTY @ RAJESH S/O GIRISHETTY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/A DODDA MARALAWADI VILLAGE POST AND HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INS. CO.LTD., UNIT-IV, 9TH FLOOR(LEVEL-06) GOLDEN HE-IGHTS COMPLEX 59TH C CROSS INDUSTRIAL SUBURB RAJAJINAGAR 4TH M BLOCK BANGALORE - 560 010 2. MR RAJEGOWDA D R S/O RAMEGOWDA MAJOR (AGE OF RESPONDENT NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 NO.01, DODDA GADIGANAHALLI K R PETE TALUK KRISHNARAJAPETE MANDYA DISTRICT-571426 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560027 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. RAMYA N. HIRIYUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 23.03.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 520/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-25) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 5440/2021 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560027 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B.S, ADVOCATE AND SMT. RAMYA N. HIRIYUR,) AND: 1. SRI HANUMANTHA SHETTY @ RAJESH S/O GIRI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 R/AT DODDA MARALAVADI VILLAGE POST AND HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 2. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT - IV, 9TH FLOOR LEVEL - 6 GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX 59TH C CROSS INDUSTRIAL SUBURB RAJAJINAGAR 4TH M BLOCK BENGALURU - 560001 3. SRI RAJEGOWDA S/O RAMEGOWDA, MAJOR NO 01 DODDA GADIGANAHALI K R PETE TALUK, KRISHNARAJEPETE MANDYA DISTRICT -571426 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1- HANUMANTHA SHETTY @ RAJESH - SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.09.20205, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISEPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.02.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.520/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-25), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,27,625/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.520/2019 dated 02.01.2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru whereby the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.3,03,363/- as compensation, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation as well questioning the contributory negligence fixed at 25%. 2. The KSRTC has also preferred an appeal questioning the contributory negligence fixed on the KSRTC driver at 25%. The appeal of the claimant is MFA.No.2295/2021. The appeal of the KSRTC is MFA.No.5440/2021. 3. The claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.12.2018 at about 1.00 a.m, the claimant was sitting in a stall situated by the side of the footpath. At that time, one Bolero Maxi Truck was standing by the side of the footpath. The said Bolero Maxi - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 Truck driver abruptly moved his vehicle towards his right side without giving any signal or indication. At that time one KSRTC bus came at high speed from Mysore side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against said Bolero Maxi Truck. Due to the impact the said Bolero Maxi Truck turned turtle towards left side, resulting the Bolero Truck fell on right leg of the claimant, thereby the claimant sustained severe injuries to his right leg. 5. The Tribunal had fixed the contributory negligence at 25% on the claimant, 25% on the KSRTC and 50% on the Bolero Maxi Truck. While fixing the liability, the Tribunal has observed that on careful scrutiny of Ex.P.3-MVA report the damages occurred to the bus is to the front side and to the Bolero to the rear right side, from this it is clear that the Bolero vehicle suddenly interfered towards road without giving signal and when the situation is that the driver of the KSRTC bus also did not take caution to put horn and make the driver of Bolero alert not to come towards road and it appears that the KSRTC bus driver did not blow horn anticipating that the said standing Bolero could intervene to the road which is also lapses on his part and hence there is a clear negligence on the part of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 both KSRTC bus and the Bolero vehicle. If the driver of KSRTC bus could have blown the horn then there is every chance of avoiding the accident which had not done by the KSRTC driver. But as per RW.1 he observed the Bolero when suddenly he intervened to the road but usually in a fraction of second no vehicle gets intervention towards road unless there is a preparation to do so which was not observed by the driver of the KSRTC bus which resulted in the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal had fixed negligence of 25% on the driver of the bus and the remaining 50% on the Bolero vehicle which abruptly intervened on the road without giving signal and observing on coming vehicle when the heavy responsibility is cast on the stopped vehicles or vehicles which intervene to the main road. The charge sheet is not filed on the driver of respondent No.3 but mere non filing of charge sheet is not the criteria to neglect the negligence caused by the driver of respondent No.3 which also aided for occurrence of accident even though he is not in a front line to cause the accident directly to the victim/claimant. The charge sheet is filed only against the Bolero which directly hit the victim. But as per the evidence, it is crystal clear that Bolero did not suomotu or solely caused the accident but as the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 KSRTC bus touched the Bolero it turtled and fell towards victim's side and caused the accident. Considering all this, the Tribunal had fixed negligence on these two vehicles. 6. Coming to the contributory negligence fixed on the claimant, the Tribunal had observed that on 27.12.2018 he was sitting in his shop in order to do business. At 1.00 a.m he was alert and standing by keeping the puffed rice in front of him and kept his shop on the footpath. The goods vehicle was taking U-turn in middle of the road and denied that due to negligence of bus driver the said accident occurred and further stated that there is mistake on the part of both vehicles as the Tempo did not put indicator. There was 5 feet distance from his shop to the road and 10 feet distance from the accident spot to his shop. He slept on the road and there was puffed rice shop. The contrary version of PW.1 that one breath he was puffed rice vendor and put his shop on the footpath and on another breath he stepped on to footpath and non-examination of any witness to prove that there was Fair/Jatre and hence he put puffed rice shop on footpath and non production of any permission or license to that effect makes difficult to believe his version. But as respondents did not produce any contra - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 evidence and looking to the version of the claimant, it appears that he has slept on the footpath in view of some program in the Sri Anjineya Temple and hence there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Accordingly, the Tribunal had fixed the contributory negligence at 20%. 7. The Tribunal had granted the compensation as per the table given below: Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 30,000/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs. 4,683/- 3. Loss of income during the laid up period Rs. 9,000/- 4. Loss of future income Rs. 2,11,680/- 5. Loss of amenities and happiness Rs. 20,000/- 6. Attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges Rs. 20,000/- 7. Future medical expenses Rs. 8,000/- TOTAL Rs. 3,03,363/- 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that because of the negligence on the part of the KSRTC as well as the Bolero Maxi Truck the accident had - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 occurred. Whether the claimant was running the stall on the footpath with permission or without permission there cannot be a contributory negligence. Because of the negligence of both the drivers, the Bolero turned turtle and fell on the claimant and he had sustained injuries. It is submitted that the Tribunal without any basis had fixed the contributory negligence on the claimant which is contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that when it comes to the compensation, he had sustained femur fracture, the awarded granted by the Tribunal under the head pain and sufferings is not reasonable. When the doctor had deposed that the disability is 19 %, the Tribunal had taken 14%. The accident had taken place in the year 2018, the Tribunal had taken the income at Rs.9,000/- instead of an amount of Rs.12,500/-. It is submitted that on all other counts, the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is not a just and reasonable compensation. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC submits that the evidence on record clearly reveals that there is no negligence on the part of the KSRTC driver. Because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the Bolero the accident had taken place. Inspite of the same, though the charge sheet - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 is filed against the driver of the Bolero, still the Tribunal had fixed the contributory negligence at 25% on the KSRTC bus which is on the higher side. It is submitted that even on the aspect of compensation also when he was there in the hospital for 11 days, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.40,000 under incident expenses. The Tribunal had fixed the rate of interest at 9% and the same needs to be reduced. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company which has insured the Bolero vehicle submits that there is negligence on the part of the claimant and the Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence at 50% on the claimant but the Tribunal had only fixed 25%. The interest at 9% is on the higher side and the same needs to be reduced. 11. Having heard learned counsels on either side, perused the materials on record. There is no dispute of the fact that the driver of the Bolero vehicle did not use any signal in order to take a turn. The Bolero vehicle suddenly interfered towards the road without giving signal, the driver of the KSRTC bus had hit the Bolero vehicle and it turned turtle and fell on the claimant. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 12. According to the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC that it is the mistake of the Bolero vehicle but not of the KSRTC bus. The Tribunal had rightly held that if the driver of the KSRTC bus is cautious, the accident could have been avoided and the Tribunal had fixed the contributory negligence at 50% and 25%. Coming to the contributory negligence that is fixed on the claimant, the Tribunal observed that there is nothing on record to show that whether he has obtained a permission to place a shop on the footpath. That cannot be a ground to say there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Whether there is a permission or there is no permission, but the accident has occurred because of the negligence on the part of both the vehicles i.e. KSRTC and the Bolero Maxi Truck. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the contributory negligence that is fixed on the claimant is without any basis. Coming to the contributory negligence on both the vehicles, looking at the facts and circumstances on the evidence, the negligence of the Bolero Maxi Truck is fixed at 85% and the KSRTC bus at 15%. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 13. Coming to the compensation, considering the femur fracture under the head of pain and suffering, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.50,000/-. As far as medical expenses are concerned, no interference is called for. Towards attendance, convenience and food and nourishment, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Considering the 11 days of hospitalization the same is reduced to an amount of Rs.11,000/-. Coming to the loss of income an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.12,500 x 4) is granted. Towards loss of amenities, considering the femur injury, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Coming to the future medical expenses, the doctor had deposed that the disability is 19%, the Tribunal had taken 14%. Considering that it is a femur injury, this Court is taking 15% which would come to an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- (Rs.12,500x12x14x15/100) is granted. Towards medical and future medical expenses, basing on evidence, the Tribunal had rightly granted compensation and no interference is called for. 14. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs. M. Malathi And - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 Another1, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses. 15. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 30,000/- 50,000/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs. 4,683/- 4683/- 3. Loss of income during the laid up period Rs. 9,000/- 50,000/- 4. Loss of future income Rs. 2,11,680/- 3,15,000/- 5. Loss of amenities and happiness Rs. 20,000/- 30,000/- 6. Attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges Rs. 20,000/- 11,000/- 7. Future medical expenses Rs. 8,000/- 8,000/- 8. Legal expenses Rs. 00 10,000/- TOTAL RS. 3,03,363/- 4,78,683/- Enhancement Rs. 1,75,320/- 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 16. Accordingly, MFA.No.2295/2021 filed by the claimant is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.3,03,363/- to Rs.4,78,683/-. 17. MFA.No.5440/2021 filed by the KSRTC is partly allowed by reducing the contributory negligence from 25% to 15% and also by reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 6% percent. The 85% of the compensation shall be paid by the insurer of the Bolero vehicle and 15% of the compensation shall be paid by the KSRTC. i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii. The KSRTC and the Insurer of Bolero Vehicle 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. If any excess amount is deposited by the KSRTC they are at liberty to withdraw. iii. 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. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37687 MFA No. 2295 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5440 of 2021 iv. The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. v. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal. vi. No costs. vii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2