- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49437 MFA No. 5226 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5226 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. DHARMASHETTY, S/O VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O CHIKKA HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, DASARAKOPPALU, HASSAN - 573 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.J ANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUNIL .C, S/O CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT C/O H.S. MAHALINGAPPA, NO.201/1, BEHIND OM STADIUM, JAYAPRAKASH ROAD, VIDYANAGARA, HASSAN - 573 201. 2. THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CHANDANA COMPLEX, HARSHA MAHAL ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.T. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 04/12/2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49437 MFA No. 5226 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.207/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by claimant against the judgment and award dated 14.06.2016 in MVC.No.207/2015 passed by the III Additional District Judge, MACT, Hassan, on the contributory negligence fastened on the claimant at 50%, so also on quantum. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicles and injury sustained are not in dispute. The only dispute raised in this appeal is fastening of 50% liability on the claimant as well as quantum of compensation. 3. Heard Sri. H.J.Ananda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. S.T.Rajashekar, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49437 MFA No. 5226 of 2016 learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Vide order dated 04.03.2023, notice of this appeal to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 4. Sri. H.J.Ananda, learned counsel submits that the Tribunal only on the basis of charge sheet lodged by the police against both the riders of the motorcycle has fastened the negligence equally i.e., 50% on both the riders. There is no other evidence placed by the insurer or the owner of the vehicle stating that the claimant contributed negligence to accident. The owner of the offending vehicle though represented by counsel, filed written statement but not contested the matter by leading evidence to substantiate the contentions taken in the written statement. 5. Learned counsel submits that the finding of the Tribunal on contributory negligence is not sustainable and is required to be set aside. He further submits that the Tribunal has not considered the disability suffered by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49437 MFA No. 5226 of 2016 the claimant at 6% to the particular limb as assessed by the doctor. The injuries suffered in all five in number including 2 fractures; (a) fracture of nasal bone and (b) fracture of nasal septum. In these circumstances, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of future income’ as well as ‘loss of amenities’ and ‘loss of income during laid down period’. 6. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads except ‘medical expenses’ are comparatively on the lower side when compared to injuries. Accordingly, he sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation. 7. Per contra Sri.S.T.Rajashekar, with all vehemence submits that the nasal bone fracture will not result in any disability which impairs the persons earning capacity. No evidence on negligence placed by the insurer but the negligence proved with police records produced by the claimant. The Tribunal has appropriately - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49437 MFA No. 5226 of 2016 considered the negligence contributed by the claimant. In these circumstances, the findings of Tribunal on contributory negligence as well as compensation does not require any interference at the ends of this Court and sought to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers along with the trial Court records. 9. It appears from the order sheet of this Court vide order dated 04.12.2023, the notice of this appeal to respondent No.1 i.e., owner of vehicle on whom 50% of contributory negligence is fastened, is dispensed with, in the absence of owner, the appellant cannot now seek shifting of contributory negligence on the owner of the offending vehicle as he is not before the Court. In the circumstances, the contention on contributory negligence as pleaded by the learned counsel appearing for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49437 MFA No. 5226 of 2016 appellant is not available. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 10. So far as compensation is concerned, there are two fractures leading in disability. Though as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/insurer, this may not come in the earning capacity of the claimant. But considering his avocation and the injuries, i.e., fracture to nasal bone as well as nasal septum, has led to some discomfort to the appellant, which he has to carry throughout his life. Without much deliberating on the heads specifically urged, considering the injuries suffered, if a sum of Rs.75,000/- globally awarded along with interest rate of 6% p.a., the same will meet the ends of justice. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49437 MFA No. 5226 of 2016 ii) The judgment and award dated 14.06.2016 in MVC.No.207/2015 passed by the III Additional District Judge, MACT, Hassan, is hereby modified to an extent of enhancing compensation by another sum of Rs.75,000/-, additionally which shall carry interest at the rate of interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. iii) The appeal in so far as the contributory negligence is concerned is dismissed. iv) The respondent No.2/insurance company shall deposit 50% of enhanced compensation along with accrued interest stated supra within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. v) Upon deposit the entire amount shall be released in favour of appellant on proper identification. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35