- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1638 MFA No. 200142 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200142 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. MALLESHA S/O HANUMANTHA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: PEON IN GRAM PANCHAYAT, PUCHALADINNI VILALGE, R/O PWD CAMP, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HANUMANTHA GOUDA S/O BUPANAGOUDA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF CAR BEARING NO. KA-36/N-2455 R/O NAKKUNDI VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584 123. 2. G.S. MALLANAGOUDA S/O G.S. RAMAREDDY, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND OWNER OF MARUTI SWIFT CAR BEARING NO. KA-36/N-2455, R/O GUJAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 102. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1638 MFA No. 200142 of 2020 BRANCH OFFICE, GANDHI CHOWK, RAICHUR-584 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R3; R2-SERVED;V/O DTD. 23.01.2024, NOTICE TO R1 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.01.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, RAICHUR IN MVC NO.380/2016. THIS APPEAL COMING ON ADMISSION HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Though the matter is slated for admission, by consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal and heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.380/2016 dated 09.01.2019 by the Prl. Dist. Judge & Member, MACT, Raichur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1638 MFA No. 200142 of 2020 the petitioner is before this Court assailing the quantum and attribution of 25% negligence to him. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 10.08.2014 the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing No.KA-36/EA-386 and the driver of the Swift Car bearing No.KA-36/N-2455 came from the opposite direction on the wrong side and dashed to the motorcycle resulting in the petitioner falling down and sustaining comminuted fracture of shaft of right tibia. The petitioner was a Government servant working as a peon at gram panchayat earning Rs.14,000/- per month. He contended that an FIR was registered by the concerned police and ultimately charge sheet was filed against the driver of the car. Therefore, he sought adequate compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the car. 4. The respondent No.3-insurance company alone contested the petition by contending amongst other grounds that the driver of the car as well as the petitioner were not having a valid driving licence and that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1638 MFA No. 200142 of 2020 compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable. 5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and petitioner was examined as PW1, Ex.P.1 to 46 were marked. The official of the respondent No.3-insurance company was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 to 5 were marked. 6. After hearing the arguments by both sides, the tribunal has attributed to 25% of the negligence to the petitioner and awarded the sum of Rs.1,26,000/- under following heads. Sl.No. Heads Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs.52,000/- 3. Attendant charges Rs.6,000/- 4. Nourishing, extra nourishment and for special diet Rs.5,000/- 5. Loss of future earning during the treatment period for two months at the rate of Rs.14,000/- p.m. Rs.28,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.1,26,000/- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1638 MFA No. 200142 of 2020 7. Being agreed by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court in appeal, contending that the attribution of the 25% of the negligence to him is incorrect and that the compensation awarded is on the lower side. 8. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner /appellant would contend that even though chargesheet was solely filed against the respondent No.1 driver of the car, the tribunal has attributed a 25% of the negligence to the petitioner on the ground that he failed to produce his driving license despite such a request was made by respondent No.3. It is contended that non possession of the driving licence is not a ground to attribute any contributory negligence. He submits that the police papers clearly indicate that the chargesheet was filed against the car driver only. The discussion by the Tribunal in para 10 shows that initially it comes to the conclusion that there was no such negligence on the part of the petitioner, but however he having not produced his driving licence, attribution of 25% of negligence to him would be - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1638 MFA No. 200142 of 2020 proper. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of amenities in life and pain and suffering etc. are not adequate. 9. In this regard, he relies upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Mangla Ram V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.1. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-insurance company would submit that the discussion made by the tribunal in para 10 of the impugned judgment goes to show that, had it been brought to the notice of the investigating officer that the petitioner was not possessing a driving licence, a chargesheet would have been filed against him and therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. Even on the contention of the petitioner that the quantum is on the lower side, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner being a Government 1 AIR 2018 SC 1900 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1638 MFA No. 200142 of 2020 servant, has been adequately compensated by the Tribunal and there is no need for enhancement. 11. A perusal of the testimony of PW1 and the police papers show that the petitioner was riding his motorcycle on the left side i.e. on Raichur-Mantralaya road. The car came from the opposite direction on the wrong side and dashed into the petitioner. The spot sketch produced at Ex.P3 would indicate that in driving the motorcycle, the petitioner had not shown any negligence. Therefore, neither the investigation papers nor the testimony of PW1 show that there was any such negligence that could be attributed to the petitioner. This finding of the tribunal in the first part of para 10 of its judgment is proper. 12. In the latter half of para 10 of the judgment, the Tribunal holds that the petitioner failed to produce his driving licence. Only on this count, the Tribunal concludes that 25% in negligence has to be attributed to the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1638 MFA No. 200142 of 2020 petitioner for not possessing a valid driving lessons at the time of the accident. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Mangla Ram cited above, in para 24 holds as below. “24. In other words, we are inclined to hold that there is no title of evidence about the motorcycle being driven negligently by the appellant at the time of accident. The respondents did not produce any such evidence. That fact, therefore, cannot be assumed. Resultantly, the argument of the respondents that the appellant did not possess a valid motorcycle driving licence at the time of accident, will be of no significance. Thus, we hold that there is no legal evidence to answer the issue of contributory negligence against the appellant.” 14. It is relevant to note that non possessing a driving licence is a matter which results in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, for which the remedy - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1638 MFA No. 200142 of 2020 is available for the State to punish the offender. Non possession of the driving license cannot be a reason for the insurance companies to say that he was negligent because he was not having a driving licence. The accident, in fact had occurred on account of the negligence of the car driver, but not the negligence of the petitioner. He being on his left side, he knew that he is riding the motorcycle diligently. Therefore, the contention of the respondent No.3-insurance company that non possession of the driving license would result in contributory negligence by the petitioner cannot hold any water. In that view of the matter, the conclusion of the tribunal that there shall be contributory negligence of 25% by the petitioner is not sustainable. 15. Coming to the quantum of the compensation, evidently the petitioner had sustained communicated fracture of the right tibia and fibula and he was inpatient presumably for a period of about a week. It is relevant to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1638 MFA No. 200142 of 2020 note that the discharge summary do not indicate the date of discharge. 16. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it appears that though the tribunal was justified in not awarding any compensation on account of the disability, for, he having continued in service, the quantum under the loss of amenities in life should have been on the higher side. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the compensation under the head loss of amenities in life would be Rs.40,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation under the remaining heads do not require any enhancement. Consequently the following orders is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order so far as it fastened 25% liability upon the petitioner is hereby set aside. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1638 MFA No. 200142 of 2020 iii. Entire liability is fastened upon the respondent No.3-insurance company. iv. There shall be an enhancement of Rs.35,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum from date of petition till realization excluding the period of 286 days. v. Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SDU,SMP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 46 CT: AK