- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5320 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: G PRAVEEN S/O T SOKKAIAH @ GUNTHAKALLU ASHOK, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT THUMBA KUPPAM VILLAGE AND POST, BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. THANVEER SYED S/O S. JAHER, MAJOR, R/AT NO 24-105/3, METLAVARI STREET, PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 247. 2. THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MM GEN. INSU. CO LTD., NO. 135/5, 15TH CROSS, 2ND FLOOR, J P NAGAR, 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 30.07.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.6944/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, C/C XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, SCCH-15, 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 RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner/appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 22.10.2019 passed in MVC.No.6944/2017 by the learned XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru, has preferred this appeal seeking to set aside the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner as well as sought for enhancement of compensation. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 3. That the petitioner/appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988') claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that took place on 21.10.2017 at about 4:45 pm., when the petitioner/appellant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-02-AP-8470 slowly, cautiously, on the correct side of the road. It is stated that, when he reached near Sini Food Factory, Bengaluru - Chittoor road, Chittoor district, Andra Pradesh, at that time, one Eicher goods vehicle bearing registration No.AP- 03-TA-7682 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations, came to the wrong side of the road and dashed the petitioner's motorcycle. Due to this, the petitioner fell down and sustained several multiple injuries on his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government hospital, Bangarupalyam and took first aid treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to Sai Sudha hospital for further treatment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 It is further stated that he took treatment as impatient and also as outpatient and has spent Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges. It is also stated that, prior to the accident, he was working in Flipkart as salesman and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the accident, petitioner's life has become miserable and depressed for financial difficulties. It is alleged that, the said accident has taken place exclusively because of the rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle by its driver stated (supra), both respondents are liable to pay compensation. He submits that, the petition be allowed. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 appeared and filed the written statement denying entire assertions made in the petition. The petitioner is put to strict proof of all the allegations with regard to age, income, his profession as well as injuries sustained by him. It is contended that, the claim prayed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. It is contended by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 respondent No.1 that, he was the driver of the goods vehicle driving in a slow manner. But, it was the petitioner/appellant, who without seeing an either side of the road, came and dashed to the goods vehicle by losing his control. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of respondent No.1. 5. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, it admits with regard to issuance of the policy in respect of the offending goods vehicle so also its validity on the date of accident further denied all other assertions. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The learned Tribunal, based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, framed three issues. To substantiate the case of the petitioner/appellant, he himself entered the witness box as PW.1 and got marked seven documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. To prove the injuries and disability sustained by him, examined Dr. Nagaraj B.N., as PW.2 and closed petitioner's evidence. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 7. Respondents have not lead any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate their plea taken up in respect of the written statement. 8. The learned Tribunal on hearing the arguments and evaluation of the evidence held that, there was a contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner/appellant to the extent of 15% in causing the accident and held that the petitioner/appellant is entitled for compensation to the extent observed in the judgment, but attributed 15% contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner/appellant. Thus, Tribunal has awarded the compensation as under: SI.No. Heads Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs.35,000/- 2. Food and Nourishment, conveyance and attendant chargers Rs.10,000/- 3. Medical expenses ------ 4. Loss of income during the period of treatment Rs.24,000/- 5. Loss of Future earnings Rs.2,07,360/- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 6. Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- 7. Future Medical expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.3,16,360/- 9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said compensation awarded by the Tribunal fastening the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner, petitioner/appellant has filed this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant with all vehemence submits that, on seeing the sketch produced by the petitioner/appellant before the Tribunal, it shows that, there was no contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner/appellant and the petitioner/appellant in the manner observed by the Tribunal. The said sketch is available along with Ex.P2 in the Trial Court records. On seeing the said sketch, it shows that, the offending goods vehicle was moving from Palamaner towards Chittoor, and the petitioner/appellant was coming from Chittoor to Palamaner, which is the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 highway. The sketch shows that, leaving aside the middle of the road towards Chittoor, the said offending goods vehicle by crossing the middle portion has dashed the petitioner's motorcycle. But the Tribunal without appreciating the same, has given a finding that, the petitioner/appellant also contributed to the extent of 15% in causing the said accident. But, the sketch though unmarked in evidence, but it is available in the file shows that, because of the rash and negligence driving of the goods vehicle stated (supra) the said accident has taken place. There is no contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner/appellant in causing the said accident as found by the Tribunal. Therefore, such a finding of the Tribunal fastening contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner/appellant to the extent of 15% is erroneous and it is liable to be set aside. Thus, it is held that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligence driving of the goods vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03-TA-7682 exclusively. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 11. So far as entitlement of the compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal has held that, based on the evidence of the doctor and the medical reports, the petitioner/appellant has sustained disability to the extent of 12% to the whole body. As per the discharge summery and other medical records, the petitioner/appellant has sustained following injuries: 1. Fracture of femure m/3rd right with comminuted fracture. 2. Fracture m/3rd left with fracture tibia. 3. Avulsion fracture PCL attached left knee with ligament. 4. Kaxicity with comminuted fracture 5th metacarpals of left hand. 12. There are multiple fractures being sustained by the petitioner/appellant in the said accident. These injuries suffered by the petitioner/appellant are not denied by respondents. Even to disprove the contents of the Ex.P.5-Discharge summary so also Ex.P.3-Wound certificate, no evidence is placed on record. As per Ex.P.3, the petitioner/appellant sustained three simple injuries - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 and two grevious injuries. This fact is not denied by respondents in material particulars. As per the evidence brought on record, when the said accident has taken place, the petitioner/appellant was aged about 22 years and was a salesman in Flipkart. These injuries must have made the petitioner/appellant to suffer. It is submitted that, the petitioner/appellant requires further treatment also. So also he requires future medical expenses to meet the medical expenses. 13. In view of the multiple fractures suffered by the petitioner/appellant, he being a young boy must have suffered a lot. So also must have suffered pain. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering. But, in view of the medical records as well as the evidence placed on record through PWs.1 and 2, Rs.35,000/- requires to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. To this extent, there is an enhancement of compensation towards pain and suffering. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 14. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. These multiple fractures sustained by the petitioner/appellant must have idled the petitioner/appellant at least for a period of 4 months and during this period, he must have spent substantial money towards food and nourishment conveyance and attendant charges. So if it is increased to Rs.20,000/-, it would meet the ends of justice. 15. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards medical expenses as no documents have been produced. Even in this appeal also, the petitioner/appellant has not produced any receipt for having spent money towards medical expenses. In view of non-production of the same, he is not entitled to any enhancement of compensation towards medical expenses. 16. So far as loss of income during the period of treatment is concerned, the petitioner/appellant must - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 have been idled at least for a period of 4 months. The accident has taken place in the year 2017. Though, it is alleged that, the petitioner/appellant was a sales man and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but to prove the said fact, except self serving evidence of PW.1, there is no evidence placed on record. In the absence of proof regarding income, we have to rely upon the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the said guidelines, for the year 2017, the proper notional income is to be assessed at Rs.11,000/-. As the petitioner/appellant is held to be idled for 4 months, towards loss of income during treatment period, it is to be Rs.11,000 X 4 = Rs.44,000/-. 17. Insofar as, loss of amenities is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner/appellant being a young boy of 22 years, having sustained multiple fractures, definitely must come in the way of his day to day activities. With all frustrations, inconvenience, discomfort, and unhappiness - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 he has to survive. These accidental injuries may come in the way of his ordinary pursuits. 18. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that, because of these multiple fractures, there is a loss of marriage prospects also. Therefore, award amount is to be increased from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. Thus, the petitioner/appellant is entitled for compensation towards loss of amenities at Rs.40,000/-. 19. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses and the same does not require any interference. 20. Insofar as loss of future income due to disability is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the disability to the extent of 12%. But, in view of the multiple fractures being sustained by the petitioner/appellant in the said accident and the nature of the treatment taken by him, if 20% is taken as the permanent disability, it would meet - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 the ends of justice. The doctor has opined that the petitioner/appellant has suffered 30% disability. As the petitioner/appellant is a young boy, by this time, the disability must have been reduced to some extent, in view of he taking proper treatment from reputed hospital. Therefore, it is held that, the petitioner/appellant has suffered disability to the extent of 20%. As the petitioner/appellant was aged about 22 years at the time of accident, the proper multiplier i.e., is applicable as in the case of SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1 is ‘18’. Thus, the loss of future income due to disability comes to Rs.11,000 X 12 X 20/100 X 18 = Rs.4,75,200/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,44,200/, together with interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of the petition till the realization. Thus petitioner/appellant is entitled for compensation as under: 1 2009 ACJ 1298 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 SI.No. Heads Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 2. Food and Nourishment, conveyance and attendant chargers Rs.20,000/- 3. Medical expenses ----- 4. Loss of income during the period of treatment Rs.44,000/- 5. Loss of Future earnings Rs.4,75,200/- 6. Loss of amenities Rs.40,000/- 7. Future Medical expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.6,44,200/- 21. So far as the liability is concerned, respondent No.1 is the owner of the goods vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said goods vehicle, primary liability on respondent No.1 to pay the compensation. However, as the policy was in force and valid on the date of accident, respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation under law of indemnity. Hence, respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation before the Tribunal within a - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 period of six weeks from the date of this judgment together with interest as ordered. There shall be modified award accordingly. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 CT: BHK - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [G PRAVEEN VS. SRI. THANVEER SYED AND ANOTHER] 11.08.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo `for being spoken to' today which reads as under: Appellant submits that the above case be posted for being spoken to correct the award amount as under. As per 8th para, page no.6 and 7 of the judgment, after deducting 15% contributory negligence calculated by the Learned Tribunal member the total compensation is Rs.2,68,900/- in total compensation of Rs.3,16,360/-. Accordingly, the claimant is supposed to be entitled to additional sum of Rs.3,75,300/- of total compensation Rs.6,44,200/-. Hence, the memo prays for correction of judgment in the interest of justice." Since this Court has not held contributory negligence on the part of the appellant-claimant to the extent of 15%, the same has not been deducted in the total compensation. Thus, the appellant-claimant is held entitled for a total compensation - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29894 MFA No. 5320 of 2020 of Rs.6,44,200/- without deducting 15% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. The result being, appeal `allowed in-part'. In view of the above, the claimant is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,44,200/- together with interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of petition till deposit, as against the award of compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.3,16,360/-. Thereby, there shall be enhancement of compensation of Rs. 3,27,840/-, rounded off to Rs.3,28,000/-. This order shall be read as part of this Court's order dated 01.08.2025 and the award shall be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1