- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36532 MFA No. 7428 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA M.F.A. NO. 7428 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SRI BYLAARASAIAH S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, AGASARAHALLI THONACHINAKUPPE NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-563 127 … APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. L AND T INSURANCE CO LTD MAGARTH ROAD ASHOK NAGARA BENGALURU -560 025 REP. BY ITS MANAGER 2. SRI SHAM SUNDAR B A S/O ASHWATH NARAYAN NO.16, 4TH BLOCK, 33RD CROSS 11TH MAIN JAYANAGAR, NEAR VIJAY PARTY HALL BENGALURU-560 041 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA N. SUTYUPPANAVAR., ADVOCATE FOR Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36532 MFA No. 7428 of 2018 SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04/12/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.6916/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ACMM., MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-23), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 04.12.2017 passed in MVC No.6916/2016, by the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bangalore and seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36532 MFA No. 7428 of 2018 3. The injured claimant filed the claim application claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.2,32,261/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. 4. It was stated before the Tribunal that petitioner while crossing the road met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing No. KA-05-MK- 4666. The Tribunal considering the manner of accident, fixed up the contributory negligence of the petitioner as 20% and that of the car driver as 80%. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred. 5. It is contended that no amount was granted for 'loss of income during laid-up period' and the amount granted under the head 'pain and suffering' is meager. The appellant submits that he was working as Coolie and was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal erred in taking Rs.5,000/- income per month. It is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36532 MFA No. 7428 of 2018 also contended that meager compensation was granted under the head 'loss of amenities'. It is also stated that P.W.2 in his evidence stated that Rs.25,000/- is required for removal of implants, but the said amount is not granted and the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car is not assessed properly. Therefore, the appellant requested for enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both parties. 7. The manner of accident clearly shows that while petitioner was crossing the road, he met with an accident due to the negligence of the driver of the car and the charge sheet is filed against the said driver. In a counter filed by respondents 1 and 2, they stated that petitioner was crossing the road negligently without observing the offending car and as such the accident has occurred only due to the negligence of the appellant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36532 MFA No. 7428 of 2018 8. The plea of contributory negligence was not taken in the written statement at the earliest point of time. No eyewitness is examined in this case. The counsel for the respondent/insurance company contended that appellant was crossing the road where there was no zebra crossing and thus the Tribunal rightly considered the contributory negligence as 20%. It is not the case of the insurance company that appellant was crossing the road in a drunken condition. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the citations of the Contemporary Bench in M.F.A. No. 584/2021 dated 01.08.2022 and in M.F.A. No. 1427/2018 dated 09.03.2020. In the said cases, contributory negligence of the person who was crossing the road was set aside on the ground that there was no legal evidence by the insurance company. 10. It is for the insurance company to plead and prove the contributory negligence of the petitioner but - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36532 MFA No. 7428 of 2018 they failed to do so. Therefore, this Court finds that the contributory negligence fixed up by the Tribunal is not on proper appreciation of facts and needs to be set aside. The petitioner was aged 61 years and working as a coolie. Though he stated that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, he has not produced any proof of income. Therefore, as the accident has occurred on 18.10.2016, this Court finds it reasonable to take his income as Rs.9,500 per month as per the guidelines given by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 11. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that petitioner sustained Grade I open comminuted fracture both bones left leg lower third and he underwent surgery. He was suffering from shooting pain, swelling, tenderness over the left leg and ankle. He was suffering from physical permanent disability of 48% in his leg and whole body disability is assessed as 16%. Considering the said evidence, the Tribunal has taken the disability as 16%. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the disability - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36532 MFA No. 7428 of 2018 assessed by the Tribunal. As the petitioner was aged 61 years, the multiplier taken by the Tribunal as 7 is proper. Therefore, 'loss of future earnings' comes to Rs.1,27,680/- (Rs.9500/-x12x7x16%). 12. This Court finds it reasonable to enhance the compensation awarded towards 'loss of amenities' to Rs.25,000/- and to enhance the compensation awarded towards 'conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food' to Rs.30,000/-. The petitioner might not have attended any other work during laid up period of 3 months due to the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.9,500 x 3 = Rs.28,500/- towards 'loss of income during laid up period'. 13. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the compensation awarded towards 'Pain and suffering', 'medical expenses' and 'future medical expenses'. 14. Thus in all, award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36532 MFA No. 7428 of 2018 Compensation under different Heads Amount (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 40,000/- Loss of future earnings 1,27,680/- Medical expenses 1,02,806/- Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food 30,000/- Loss of amenities of life 25,000/- Future Medical expenses 10,000/- Loss of income during laid up period 28,500/- Total 3,63,986/- 15. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.2,32,261/- to Rs.3,63,986/-. 16. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and award dated 04.12.2017 passed in MVC No.6916/2016, by the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bangalore, is modified. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36532 MFA No. 7428 of 2018 iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,63,986/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization as against Rs.2,32,261/- iv. Respondent No.1 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of this order. v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with accrued interest. vi. 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. vii. Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE VP