- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25185 MFA No. 8805 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8805 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI SHAIK NAZEER S/O SHAIK PEER SAB, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.385, 4TH CROSS, NEAR BADAR MASJID NANJAPPA LAYOUT, NAGAWARA,BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE-45, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.3, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, IRSHAD NAGAR, AREBIK COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE-49 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.B.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD BY ITS MANAGER, GOLDEN HEIGHTS 4TH FLOOR, NO.1/2, 59TH C CROSS ROAD, 4TH M BLCOK, 59 C CROSS ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 10 2. SRI VENAKATAPPA C S/O CHINNAPPA, MAJOR, RESIDENT OF NO.8/47, 4TH BLOCK, GOPALAPPA GARDEN, DODDABOMMASANDRA Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25185 MFA No. 8805 of 2019 VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE-560097 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADISH P S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. SHANKARAIAH B, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5452/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-16) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881, challenging the judgment and award dated 16.08.2019 passed in MVC No.5452/2017 by the Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, X Additional Judge Court of Small Causes (SCCH-16), Bangalore2, wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1988’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25185 MFA No. 8805 of 2019 `2,75,200/- together with interest at 9% pa. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence as well as seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri H.B.Somapur for the appellant/claimant and learned counsel Sri Jagadish P.S, for respondent No.1-insurer. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 10% in causing the accident in question is erroneous having regard to the admitted position that the accident happened at the edge of the road. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer justifies the finding of the Tribunal both on negligence as well as the quantum of compensation and seeks for dismissal of the appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25185 MFA No. 8805 of 2019 5. Submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been produced. The questions that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal on negligence is erroneous and liable to be interfered with? ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced? Re: Question No.(i): 6. It is the case of the claimant that when he was walking on the footpath, the offending Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No.KA-04-JD-20913 being driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner came and hit him causing the accident in question. Respondent No.2/owner of the scooter entered appearance through a counsel. However, no objections were filed. The insurer who was arrayed as respondent No.1 before the Tribunal in its statement of objections has merely denied the averments of the claimant in 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘scooter’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25185 MFA No. 8805 of 2019 the claim petition with regard to the manner of occurrence of the accident. No specific plea was averred with regard to negligence. The claimant examined himself as PW.1. In his cross examination, PW.1 admitted that at the place of occurrence of the accident, there is no traffic signal and zebra crossing. PW.1 further admitted that the accident occurred when he was crossing the road and that in the centre of the road there is a median. That the distance between the accident spot and the median is 5 feet. However, he denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his negligence and not due to negligence of the rider of the scooter. He has stated that he was not aware that in the discharge summary, it is written that the accident took place when he was crossing the road. 7. The owner of the scooter examined himself as RW.1 and denied the contentions of the claimant that the rider of the scooter was negligent in causing the accident. RW.1 further states that the rider of the scooter was his son and that when the son was proceeding on the insured scooter observing the traffic norms, the claimant suddenly came across the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25185 MFA No. 8805 of 2019 scooter and although his son tried to avoid the accident, due to fault of the claimant he hit the claimant. RW.1 in the cross examination admits that he has not seen the accident. The rider of the vehicle has been examined as RW.2 wherein he has stated that the claimant without observing the traffic norms was crossing the road and suddenly jumped the road divider and due to the carelessness of the claimant the accident occurred. RW.2 admits that he was riding the offending scooter and he has not challenged the charge sheet filed by the police. That the police refused to receive his complaint. That RW.2 himself took the claimant to the hospital. 8. It is forthcoming from the sketch (Ex.P3) that the accident occurred at the edge of the road towards the extreme left side of the direction in which the rider of the scooter was traveling. 9. The Tribunal while considering the aspect of negligence, noticed the admission of PW.2 that there was no zebra crossing and further recorded a finding that PW.1 has admitted that the accident took place when he was crossing the road. However, it is relevant to notice that in the sketch - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25185 MFA No. 8805 of 2019 (Ex.P3), it is clear that the accident occurred on the edge of the road on the left side. Hence, it is clear that the rider of the scooter was proceeding on the extreme left hand side of the road and could have avoided the accident. Further, it is pertinent note that the police authorities have filed the charge sheet against the rider of the scooter which has been admitted by RW.1. Although RW.1 stated that in the cross examination that the police authorities have refused to receive his complaint, there is no other material produced in that regard. In view of the aforementioned, the finding of the Tribunal holding that the claimant was responsible to the extent of 10% for the accident is erroneous and it required to be held that the rider of the scooter is negligent in crossing the accident. Hence, question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. Re: Question No.(ii): 10. The claimant is aged 62 years as on the date of the accident i.e., 18.9.2017. Hence, the Tribunal has applied the appropriate multiplier of 7. It was averred that the claimant is a driver. However, no documents have been produced to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25185 MFA No. 8805 of 2019 demonstrate his income. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the claimant as `9,000/-. Having regard to the date of the accident, the national income of the claimant is re-assessed as `11,000/-. 11. It is forthcoming from the wound certificate (Ex.P5) and discharge card (Ex.P7) that the claimant sustained fracture of both bones of the right leg and subtrochanteric fracture of the left leg. The claimant has taken treatment as an inpatient for a total period of 17 days. The doctor (PW.2) has assessed the disability to the right and left lower limbs at 61.7%. The Tribunal has re-assessed the same at 20% which is jut and proper. 12. Having regard to the aforementioned, the compensation is re-assessed as follows: 12.1 The compensation of `50,000/- towards pain and suffering, `40,000/- towards loss of amenities and happiness and `20,000/- towards future medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal are just and proper; 12.2 Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment, it is just and proper that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25185 MFA No. 8805 of 2019 compensation towards attendant charges, nutritious food and conveyance expenses be re-assessed as `20,000/- as against `9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal; 12.3 The compensation towards loss of income during laid up period is re-assessed as (`11,000/-x3) `33,000/- as against `27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal; 12.4 The Tribunal has awarded medical expenses in a sum of `8,522/- as per the actual bills, which is just and proper and hence, the same is rounded off as `10,000/-; 12.5 The compensation towards disability/loss of earning capacity is re-assessed as (`11,000/-x12x7x20%) `1,84,800/- as against `1,51,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13. It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. However, taking judicial notice of the interest payable towards fixed deposits, it is just and proper to award interest at the rate of 7% p.a., on the compensation as re- assessed/enhanced by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the total compensation under various heads is re-assessed as follows: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25185 MFA No. 8805 of 2019 Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Towards pain and suffering 50000.00 50000.00 2. Attendant charges, extra nutritious food and conveyance expenses 9000.00 20000.00 3. Loss of income during laid up period 27000.00 33000.00 4. Medical expenses 8522.00 10000.00 5 Loss of future income due to permanent disability 151200.00 184800.00 6 Loss of future amenities and happiness 40000.00 40000.00 7 Future medical expenses 20000.00 20000.00 Total 305722.00 357800.00 15. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of (`3,57,800/- – `3,05,722/-) `52,078/-. 16. In the result, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part; ii) The judgment and award dated 16.08.2019 passed in MVC No.5452/2017 by the Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, X Additional Judge Court of Small Causes (SCCH-16), Bangalore, is modified to an extent stated herein. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25185 MFA No. 8805 of 2019 In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered. iii) The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.52,078/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal; iv) Respondent No.1 – insurer shall deposit the said compensation together with accrued interest within a period of six weeks; v) Upon such deposit, the entire enhanced compensation together with interest accrued thereupon be disbursed digitally to the claimant; vi) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly; vii) Records of the Tribunal be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. No costs. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22