- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13738 M.F.A. No.2570/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2570/2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. NANJEGOWDA .M S/O MUDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS YALIYURU POST, UPPINAHALLI CHANNARAYANAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573225 MOB NO.9071333767. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA M, ADV.,) AND: 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.28, 5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDING M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. PRAJWAL M.C. S/O CHANDRAPPA MALE MANE, MEGURU VILLAGE MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577122. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. KUMAR B, ADV., FOR R2) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13738 M.F.A. No.2570/2020 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.07.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.2946/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the injured appellant seeking for higher compensation and also challenging the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award dated 07.02.2020 passed in MVC 2946/19 by the III Additional Judge and MACT, Bangalore, (SSCH-18), (for short ' the Tribunal'). 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Sri.Nagaraja M., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13738 M.F.A. No.2570/2020 grave error in recording a finding that the injured appellant has contributed to the accident to the extent of 10% by ignoring Ex.P3, the sketch produced on record. It is submitted that the Tribunal has further erred in ignoring the charge sheet material, which clearly indicates that the charge sheet has been filed against the rider of the offending vehicle. Hence, he seeks to reverse the said finding. It is further submitted that the injured was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and therefore appropriate multiplier applicable would be 16. The income of the appellant is also required to be reassessed appropriately, as it was claimed that he was earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. It is also submitted that the appellant was an inpatient for 22 days and had undergone surgery for the injuries sustained. Hence, the award of compensation under all other heads also required to be reassessed appropriately. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the fact that there are external fixations to the leg, which cause greater - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13738 M.F.A. No.2570/2020 inconvenience to the appellant. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri.Ravi S. Samprathi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has assigned detailed reasons in paragraph No.19 of the judgment by referring to the MVA report, charge sheet material and other evidence available on record, and has recorded a clear finding with regard to contributory negligence, and the said finding cannot be ignored without any evidence before this Court; hence, he seeks to sustain the said finding. It is submitted that in the absence of any evidence with regard to the income of the appellant, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income and awarded just compensation under other heads which does not call for any modification. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the material available on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13738 M.F.A. No.2570/2020 6. The material on record indicates that the appellant met with a road accident on 28.03.2019 and was provided treatment at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru. The records indicate that he was treated as an inpatient for a period of 22 days on two occasions. PW2, the treating doctor, was examined before the Tribunal, who assessed the whole body disability at 18% and 54% to the particular limb. The Tribunal taking into consideration the nature of treatment provided and injuries sustained, by the appellant, assessed the whole body disability at 14%, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Insofar as the income of the appellant is concerned, admittedly no legally acceptable evidence was placed before the Tribunal with regard to his income. Hence, the income of the appellant is notionally reassessed at Rs.14,000/- per month by placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13738 M.F.A. No.2570/2020 7. Insofar as the contention with regard to the contributory negligence is concerned, the material on record indicates that the appellant himself was riding the motorcycle and the accident occurred due to a head-on collision between two motorcycles. It is not in dispute that the charge sheet has been filed against the rider of the offending motorcycle. However, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the MVA report, which indicates that the front portions of both the vehicles were substantially damaged. Taking note of the said evidence and also referring to the charge sheet material, the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the appellant has contributed to the accident to the extent of 10%. I do not find any error in the said finding calling for interference in this appeal. Hence, the contrary contention urged by the appellant is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. 8. The further contention of the appellant is that the appellant had just completed 35 years at the time of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13738 M.F.A. No.2570/2020 the accident and therefore the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 16. The said contention cannot be accepted, as the appellant has failed to produce the birth certificate, before the Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had completed 35 years and was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15, which does not call for any interference. Having reassessed the income of the appellant, the appellant/claimant would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability as under: Rs.14,000 X 12 X 15 X 14% = Rs.3,52,800/-. 9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,800/- towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses, which remains unaltered. However, taking note of the oral testimony of PW2, the treating doctor, and also considering the fact that the appellant was treated as an - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13738 M.F.A. No.2570/2020 inpatient for 22 days, during which external fixations were inserted, and that even after discharge he was required to undergo pain and suffering and take bed rest, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is required to be reassessed by appropriately enhancing the same. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the modified compensation as under: Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to 90% of the total compensation (Rs.5,49,600/-) i.e., Rs.4,94,640/- as against Rs.3,87,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Pain & suffering 55,000 Loss of amenities 40,000 Medical expenses 14,800 Loss of income during laid-up period (Rs.14,000 X 3) 42,000 Loss of future income due to disability 3,52,800 Towards conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourished food 30,000 Towards future medical expenses 15,000 Total 5,49,600 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13738 M.F.A. No.2570/2020 10. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal stands allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to 90% of total compensation (Rs.5,49,600/-) i.e., Rs.4,94,640/- as against Rs.3,87,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13738 M.F.A. No.2570/2020 a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the entire enhanced compensation amount in favour of the appellant. f) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22