- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF IN MFA No.6899/2021: BETWEEN: SRI KALEGOWDA S/O GIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O G. HOSURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116. …APPELLANT (BY SRI K R LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN-573201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6899/2021 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5086/2021(MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5087/2021(MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6897/2021(MV-I) Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC No.183/2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, DATED 24.03.2021, THEREBY AWARDING MEAGER COMPENSATION, BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWAWRD BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AS PRAYED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO.5086/2021: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HASSAN DIVISION KSRTC, HASSAN REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: NANJEGOWDA S/O GIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O G. HOSURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYANAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT (SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, IN MVC NO.184/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.04.2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, IN MVC No.184/2018 AND THEREBY DISMISS THE CLAIM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER PETITION FILED BY THE REPONDENT HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO.5087/2021: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HASSAN DIVSION KSRTC, HASSAN REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, SHANTHINAGAR BENGLAURU 560027. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: KALE GOWDA S/O GIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O G HOSUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT (SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, IN MVC NO.183/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.03.2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, IN MVC No.183/2018 AND THEREBY DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE REPONDENT HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER IN MFA NO.6897/2021: BETWEEN: SRI NANJEGOWDA S/O GIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O G HOSURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573116. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN – 573201. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G LAKSHMEESH RAO,ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.184/2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, DATED 22.04.2021, THEREBY AWARDING MEAGER COMPENSATION, BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AS PRAYED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER ORAL JUDGMENT MFA Nos.5086/2021 and 5087/2021 are filed by the Corporation against the judgment and award dated 22.04.2021 and 24.03.2021 in MVC Nos.184/2018 and 183/2018, respectively passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Channarayapatna (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), calling in question the liability i.e., contributory negligence as well as quantum of compensation. 2. MFA Nos.6899/2021 and 6897/2021 are filed by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 24.03.2020 in MVC Nos.183/2018 and 184/2018, respectively passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Channarayapatna, seeking enhancement of compensation in both the claim petitions. 3. The date of accident, involvement of vehicles, injuries sustained by the claimants are not in dispute. The only dispute is as per the Corporation regarding - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER contributory negligence and quantum of compensation sofar as the claimants for inadequate compensation. 4. Heard Sri Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for the appellant – Corporation in MFA No.5086/2021 MFA No.5087/2021 and MFA No.6897/2021 and respondents in MFA No.6899/2021, Sri K.R. Lingaraju, learned counsel for the appellants – claimants in MFA No.6899/2021, MFA No.6897/2021 and respondent in MFA No. 5086/2021 and MFA No.5087/2021. 5. Sri Lakshmeesh Rao, with all vehemence contended that the Police have registered the case against the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-09-F- 3568 belonging to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) on the premise that the accident has occurred at a junction wherein the aforesaid bus was plying from Nuggehalli to go to Channarayapatna, Hassan, the motorcycle was moving on the road from B.M. Road to Bengaluru. Though in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER complaint, the complainant has stated that the bus came in a rash and negligent manner being driven by its driver and dashed against the motorcycle, however, all other records, such as, M.V. report, the spot mahazar clearly show that there is no marks of damage found on the bus belonging to the Corporation, whereas the damage caused to the left motor cycle was on the left clutch pad and also to the left indicator. This clearly shows that it is a self fall by the rider of the motorcyclist who was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules at an inter-junction. Added to this, on the date of accident, it was raining and in that context there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus though the bus was stationed at the junction, it is the rider who was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, immediately after noticing the bus, applied sudden break and lost control due to which the motor cycle got skided and both rider and pillion rider sustained injuries. Though evidence to that effect has - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER been led by the driver of the vehicle before the Tribunal, the Tribunal failed to consider the same. Even the Tribunal has failed to consider the cross-examinations wherein certain admissions are elicited from the mouth of the injured claimants. In these circumstances, the entire liability fastened on the Corporation is unsustainable as the rider and the driver both being the road users should have observed minimum caution and care while driving the bus as well as riding the motorcycle, as both are duty bound against other road users. He further submits that the rider of the motorcycle could have been more prudent and circumspect while riding the motorcycle more particularly at the interjunction. 6. To buttress his argument, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Koosappa Poojari Vs. K. Sadabba and Other1 to contend that the Tribunal has failed to fasten the negligence on the rider of 1 2004 ACJ 2102 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER the motorcycle exonerating the driver of the bus of the Corporation from liability to pay the compensation. Accordingly, sought to allow both the appeals and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal fastening the liability on the Corporation to pay the compensation. 7. Per contra, Sri K.R. Lingaraju, refuting the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation in both the appeals vehemently submitted that the Police have registered the case against the driver of the Corporation and after conclusion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the driver of the bus. The bus being heavy vehicle, while crossing over the main road at an inter-junction ought to have taken proper care and caution which in the case on hand is not found, which led in causing accident. Only on the ground that the damages are not found to the bus, same cannot be operated as an immunity to claim exoneration from paying the compensation. The bus came from Nuggehalli side to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER go towards Channarayapatna, Hassan, and has to cross over the main road, the rider was riding the motorcycle along with pillion rider on the main road from Channarayapatna towards Bengaluru. The person who comes from a cross road to cross over the main highway should be more cautious and ought to have allowed the vehicles to ply on the highway. Whereas, in the case on hand, it is the rash, negligent and reckless driving of bus by its driver is the root cause for the accident. The spot sketch as well as the spot mahazar clearly shows that it is the driver of the bus who is responsible for the accident. The Tribunal having considered the entire materials on record, answered issue No.1 against the Corporation and fastened liability on it to pay the compensation, the same does not call for any interference. 8. Sofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, Sri K.R. Lingaraju submits the Tribunal has not awarded appropriate compensation considering the injuries, treatment taken, expenses incurred, disability - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER suffered by the claimants, the same requires re- consideration at the hands of this Court and sought to allow both the appeals. Alternatively, he has submitted that both rider and pillion rider sustained injures in the accident. In the event, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is some part of negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, but there cannot be any negligence on the part of the pillion rider and sought to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant/Corporation and allow the appeals filed by the claimants for enhancement. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in all these appeals, perused the entire papers and so also the trial Court record produced in both the claim petitions. 10. The points that arise for consideration before this Court are: 1) Whether the Tribunal is right in answering issue No.1 in both the claim petitions in the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER Affirmative fastening entire liability on the Corporation or whether the Tribunal had failed to note that there is some negligence contributed by the rider of the motorcycle? 2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal befit within the expression “just compensation” and if it is not, whether the same requires enhancement? 11. My answer to the above points are in partly affirmative for the following: REASONS 12. Before dwelling on the present case on hand, it is very apt to reproduce certain paragraphs in the law laid down by this Court in the case of KOOSAPPA POOJARI stated supra. In the opening line of aforesaid judgment of this Court, it is quoted that; Lord du Parcq has pointed out that the “underlying principle of the law of the highways is that all those lawfully using the highway must show mutual respect and forbearance”. It pre-supposes that there is reciprocal duty of both the users of the road i.e., highways as well as inter junction from where a person - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER meet at the junction either to proceed on the highway or to cross over the highway to move to other place have to be used reasonable care to avoid causing damage either to persons or vehicles or property of any kind on or adjoining the highway. 13. This Court while considering the entire material in the said case, considered the contributory negligence on the pedestrians as well as the driver of the lorry to an extent of 25% and 75%. In other words, 75% liability has been fastened on the driver of the lorry and 25% on the pedestrian who was crossing the road on the highway. 14. This Court in the case of Koosappa Poojari stated supra at para Nos.6 to 9 given finding on the contributory negligence, which are reproduced as under: “6. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inactiveness when his foot - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER is on the pedal of the vehicle in motion. He cannot take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause accident 7. Charlesworth and Percy in their Book on Negligence, 7th Edition have stated thus: “A road user must not presume to use the highway on the basis that the other users, whether drives or pedestrians, will behave with reasonable care, which common experience has shown to be a false assumption. In this regard Lord Uthwatt added: “a driver is not, of course, bound to anticipate folly in all its forms, but he is not, in my opinion, entitled to put out of consideration the teachings of experience as to the form these follies commonly take.” Pollock C.B. said: “It is the duty of persons, who are driving over a crossing for foot- passengers which is at the entrance of a street, to driver slowly, cautiously, and carefully; but it is also the duty of a foot-passenger to use due care and caution in going upon a crossing at the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER entrance of a street, so as not to get among the carriages, and thus receive injury.” It is the duty of the driver of a vehicle to keep a good look out. He must look out for other traffic which may be expected to be on the road in front of him, behind him or along side of him especially at cross roads, junctions and bends. The case on hand would clearly indicate that the claimant had crossed a better part of the road and was standing on the median line to cross the remaining half. The fact that he had crossed only a small extent of the road to an extent of 2½ feet the offending vehicle in question came and hit him. The aftermath of the accident was that it had proceeded for a further distance of 20 feet and had climbed the median line. This is another clear indication that the driver indeed was rash and negligent. The only question hence is what is the care taken by the driver to avoid the said accident. However, the fact that a motorist's failure to see a pedestrian crossing all of a sudden cannot be lost sight of. It is not disputed before me that on the western side is the New Mangalore Port Trust and on the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER eastern side of the road is the Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers which would essentially mean that it is a busy road. All the more so the driver of the vehicle ought to have been more prudent and circumspect while driving. But it cannot be lost sight of the fact that a duty is also cast on a pedestrian and he should use due care and caution in going upon and crossing the road and it is his duty to look out for on coming traffic. In so far as the another duty cast on the pedestrian is concerned, it is needless to say that he has to give the driver a plenty of time to see him and slow down and start before he attempts to cross or put one foot on the crossing. It is not always necessary that the vehicular traffic will have to stop for a pedestrian to cross, for the vehicle needs more time to stop in view of the speed a motor generates. Moreover, whenever a pedestrian is crossing over a roadway at any place other than which is meant for pedestrian crossing, they cannot claim any specific precedence and the responsibility for causing the accident more often than not will have to be shared by the pedestrian along with the vehicle driver. In view of this, it cannot be said that it was only the driver of the vehicle - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER in question who was solely responsible for the accident it has also to be noted that there is no evidence forthcoming to show that it was the pedestrian crossing or whether there were any zebra-crossing. In view of the fact that the claimant had crossed the road where he was not supposed to cross certain degree of contributory negligence will have to be attributed to him 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and ors., of the judgment, as follows: “The following observation of the High Court of Australia in Astely v. Austrust Ltd. (1999) 73 ALJR 403 (Australia) is worthy of quoting. A finding of contributory negligence turns on a factual investigation whether the plaintiff contributed to his or her own loss by failing to take reasonable care of his or her person or property. What is reasonable care depends on the circumstances of the case. In many cases, it may be proper - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER for a plaintiff to rely on the defendant to perform its duty. But there is no absolute rule. The duties and responsibilities of the defendant are a variable factor in determining whether contributory negligence exists and, if so, to what degree. In some cases, the nature of the duty owed may exculpate the plaintiff from a claim of contributory negligence, in other cases, the nature of the duty may reduce the plaintiff's share of responsibility for the damage suffered; and in yet other cases the nature of the duty may not prevent a finding that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for the safety of his or her person or property. Contributory negligence focuses on the conduct of the plaintiff. Duty owed by the defendant, although relevant, is one only to many factors that must be weighed in determining whether the plaintiff has so conducted itself that it failed to take reasonable care for the safety of its person or property.” 9. Sri Vishwajith Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant claimant - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER submitted that taking into consideration the way the accident had occurred, the apportionment, in the circumstances, ought to have been 90:10; ninety percent attributable to the driver of the vehicle and 10% to the claimant. However, Sri Ravishankar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the contributory negligence as apportioned by the Tribunal is just and proper. He further submitted that the Tribunal had taken into consideration the relevant materials on record and submitted that the ratio as determined by the Tribunal should be maintained. Be that as it may, the facts and the law on contributory negligence as discussed above would indicate that apportionment in the ratio 75:25 would be just and proper taking into consideration the evidence on record. This view of mine is supported by a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Sharadabai and Ors. Vs. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore 3.1987 (2) Kar.L.J.226 (DB): 1988 ACJ 490 (Kar.). In so far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it does not require any reconsideration as the Tribunal has properly appreciated and - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER awarded the compensation under all other heads.” 15. The judgment clearly shows that the user of the road whether rider, driver or a pedestrian to take utmost care and caution while on the road to avoid any unforeseen or unfortunate events which may result in an accident causing injury or fatal in nature. Coming to the case on hand, the motorcycle was plying from Channarayapatna to Bengaluru, whereas the bus was coming from Nuggehalli towards Channarayapatna at an inter junction to cross over the main highway, at that time an unfortunate incident had taken place wherein both rider as well as pillion rider suffered grievous resulting in disabilities. As held by this Court in the case of Koosappa Poojari (supra), it is the duty of the driver of the vehicle who enters to the highway to keep a good lookout, he/she must lookout for the other traffic which may be expected infront of him or who along side of him especially at crossed roads and junctions. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER 16. In the case on hand, it is a cross road junction where the bus meets at inter junction and crosses over highway. The driver/rider while crossing the road should have been more cautious as the road being highway, the density of movement of vehicle are obvious. The only fact that there is no damages found on the body of the bus cannot be a ground to grant an immunity to the Corporation to escape from the liability. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight that the rider of the motorcycle was plying on the road along with pillion rider should have taken utmost care while crossing junction in the highway as the other traffic may be expected from the cross roads to the highway. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and as held by this Court in the Koosappa Poojari (supra), if the negligence is saddled at ratio of 75: 25 on the driver of the bus and rider of the motorcycle respectively, it would meet ends of justice. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and committed an error in answering the issue - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER No.1 in both the claim petitions in the affirmative instead of answering partly in the affirmative saddling the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. 17. For the above reasons, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative and accordingly the finding of the Tribunal in both the claim petitions on issue No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative thereby saddling the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and rider of the motorcycle in the ratio of 75:25. 18. Sofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the injuries suffered, treatment taken, expenses incurred and disability suffered, the claimants in both the appeals as stated by the Tribunal while answering issue No.2, the compensation awarded under each head except under the head medical expenses requires to be re-determined in both the appeals filed by the claimants. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER 19. On re-determination of compensation in both the claimants’ are entitled to following compensation: In MFA.No.6899/2021: 20. The appellant is entitled for following amount of compensation. Sl.No Heads Amount 1. Loss of future income Rs.1,59,600/- 2. Pain, shock and suffering Rs.40,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- 4. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.38,000/- 5. Attendant, special diet and conveyance charges Rs.20,000/- 6. Medical Expenses Rs.5,720/- Total Rs.2,93,320/- 21. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.2,07,430/- to Rs.2,93,320/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. In MFA.No.6897/2021: - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER 22. The appellant is entitled for following amount of compensation. Sl.No Heads Amount 1. Loss of future income Rs.1,25,400/- 2. Pain, shock and suffering Rs.50,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- 4. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.38,000/- 5. Attendant, special diet and conveyance charges Rs.20,000/- 6. Medical Expenses Rs.26,711/- Total Rs.2,90,111/- 23. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to Rs.2,90,111/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as against Rs.2,00,491/- awarded by the Tribunal. 24. Accordingly, the points for consideration are answered as stated supra and this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA Nos.5086/2021 and 5087/2021 filed by the Corporation are allowed-in-part; thereby the impugned judgment and award dated 22.04.2020 and 24.03.2021, passed in MVC - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER No.184/2018 and 183/2018, receptively passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Channarayapatna are modified. ii. MFA Nos.6899/2021 and 6897/2021 filed by the appellants/claimants are allowed-in-part; thereby the impugned judgment and award dated 24.03.2021 and 22.04.2021, passed in MVC No.183/2018 and 184/2018, receptively passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Channarayapatna are modified. iii. The appellant-claimant in MFA No.6899/2021 is entitled for enhanced compensation from Rs.2,07,430/- to Rs.2,93,320/- along with accrued interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till its realization. iv. The appellant-claimant in MFA No.6897/2021 is entitled for enhanced compensation from Rs.2,00,491/- to Rs.2,90,111/- along with accrued interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till its realization v. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is answered partly in affirmative and saddled contributory negligence of 75% on Bus and - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER 25% on Rider of the motorcycle and also reducing the interest from 9% to 6%. vi. In MFA No.6899/2021, the respondent – Corporation shall deposit 75% of the total re- determined compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum after deducting the amount in deposit before the concerned Tribunal; and the amount in deposit made by the Corporation in MFA No.5087/2021 before this court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. vii. In MFA No.6897/2021, though there is a contributory negligence since two vehicles are involved, the respondent - Corporation is liable to pay the entire re-determined compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization before the concerned Tribunal. viii. The Corporation is at liberty to recover 25% from the owner of the motorcycle responsible for contributory negligence. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28496 MFA No. 6899 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5086 of 2021 MFA No. 5087 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER ix. Corporation is at liberty to deduct 25% of the amount while making payment in MVC.No.183/2018. x. The re-determined compensation shall be deposited by the corporation within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT:JLR