- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10695 MFA No. 115 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. K. SRINIVASA MURTHY, S/O. KEMPE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.12, "LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA", 6TH CROSS, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, KUDLU, BANGALORE - 560 068. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H E GUNDE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL, INSURANCE CO LTD., NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, MANADI PLAZA, ST MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. (INSURER OF TATA 407 GOODS CARRYING VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-51-1401, POLICY NO. 140372334000428, POLICY SERVING OFFICE: 1ST FLOOR, MYSORE TRADE CENTRE, OPP KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSORE - 570 001. VALID FROM 09/10/2012 TO 08/10/2013) (BY SRI H.N. KESHAVA PRASANTH ADV.) Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10695 MFA No. 115 of 2016 2. MR. RAJESH, NO.8, 2ND MAIN, SAMIRAPURA, KEMPE GOWDA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 019. (R.C. OWNER OF TATA 407 GOODS CARRYING VEHICLE, BEARING NO. KA-51-1401) (BY PADMA PRASAD.B.N ADV.) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 21.11.2019 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2182/13 ON THE FILE OF THE 20TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE (SCCH-22), MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10695 MFA No. 115 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.H.E.Gunde Gowda, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri.H.S.Lingaraju, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurer. Vide order dated 21.11.2017, notice to respondent No.2 is dispenses with. 2. The claimant is in appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation arising out of judgment and award dated 05.10.2015 in MVC.No.2182/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH-22) (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 4. In an accident occurred on 02.03.2013, the claimant, who was rider of motorcycle met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving by driver of TATA 407 Goods carrying vehicle bearing registration No.KA-51-1401. The police having registered a complaint - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10695 MFA No. 115 of 2016 after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the TATA 407. In the accident the claimant had suffered the following injuries: “Tenderness + Crepatues + over the right wrist pain in nasal bridge. Right Wrist –Fracture of distal 1/3rd of right radius with distal displacement of fragments, B/L Nasal bones undisplaced fracture of both nasal bones.” 5. The Tribunal after considering the entire material place before it, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- along with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. However the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head ‘Loss of income due to disability’, on the premise that in the cross examination, the claimant has admitted that he is still continuing his job as Data Operator and earning Rs.13,000/- per month. However the Tribunal considering the entire case awarded compensation under various heads. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10695 MFA No. 115 of 2016 6. The Tribunal further while answering issue No.1 held that the claimant to the question regarding his DL stated that he is having a Driving License and is not produced in the case. On this the Tribunal has taken an adverse inference stating that when there is no Driving License, it is not only an offence, but it can also be presumed that rider do not know how to ride a two wheeler properly. Accordingly, fixed contributory negligence at the rate of 25%, relying on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in MFA.No.30284/2008 dated 05.12.2012. Calling in question the finding of contributory negligence as well as on the quantum of compensation, the claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 7. Sri. H.E.Gunde Gowda, with all vehemence submits that the injuries which were suffered stated supra resulted in permanent disability. A doctor has been examined as PW-2 who has clearly stated that the claimant has suffered 11% disability to the whole body. In - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10695 MFA No. 115 of 2016 these circumstances even though the complainant may not be entitled to the future prospectus in view of admission that he is continuing in the service, but definitely he is entitled for higher compensation under all the heads, except medical expenses and future medical expenses. It is further submitted that the only ground on which the Tribunal has fastened 25% contributory negligence is on one sentence which is stated in the cross-examination, without any further suggestions on that. The answer which is stated in the cross-examination is as under: “I have got Driving License for two wheeler and it is not produced” This has been considered by the Tribunal to hold it adversely against the claimant stating that the absence of Driving License besides being an offence can also be presumed that the rider of the two wheeler was not having knowledge to ride the two wheeler. To buttress his contention he refers to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10695 MFA No. 115 of 2016 others1 and relied on paragraph No.9, to contend that if a person drives a vehicle without a license, he commits an offence. However, the same may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards to accident. In the absence of any substantial evidence to show that he was riding rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, mere absence of license would not be a stand alone ground to hold that he is guilty of contributory negligence and sought to allow the appeal, by enhancing the compensation and set aside the contributory negligence saddled on the claimant. 8. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, Sri H.S.Lingaraju, submits that the Tribunal in the absence of license having been produced by the claimant has properly considered the case on its merits, while holding contributing negligence against the claimant and it does not call for any interference. So far as enhancement of compensation is concerned, he submits 1 2008(12)SCC 436 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10695 MFA No. 115 of 2016 that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.80,000 under the head ‘Pain and suffering’, Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘loss and amenities’ and awarded adequate compensation under all other heads for the injuries suffered stated supra referring to paragraph No.12 in the judgment i.e., ‘fracture of wrist, distal 1/3rd of right radius and distal displacement of fragments, B/L Nasal bones’ – undisplaced/bilateral fracture of nasal bones and sought to dismiss the appeal. 9. Having considered the submissions, this Court perused the entire appeal paper as well as trial Court record. 10. The points that would arise for consideration are as follows: (i) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the claimant has contributed 25% negligence towards the accident? (ii) Whether the claimant has made out any case for enhancement of compensation? 11. My answer to the above points are as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10695 MFA No. 115 of 2016 Point No.1: In the Negative. Point No.2: Partly in the Affirmative, for the following: REASONS 12. Point No.1: Except one sentence stated in the cross-examination, which I have already extracted above, there is nothing on record produced by the insurer to substantiate its contention. The statement that he has got the driving license, but not produced, cannot be presumed that the claimant is not holding any driving license. He was not given any opportunity to produce the driving license. The Tribunal overweighed the statement in the cross- examination and held that in the absence of driving license the rider was not having any knowledge to ride the two wheeler. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana supra at paragraph No.9 has held as under: “9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10695 MFA No. 115 of 2016 held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.” 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in absence of any substantial, cogent evidence laid by the insurer to show that the claimant was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident, he cannot be saddled with contributory negligence. The finding of the Tribunal on contributory negligence therefore, requires to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside by answering Point No.1 in the negative i.e., in favor of the claimant. 15. Point No.2: So far as quantum is concerned, no doubt the claimant has clearly stated that he is continuing his job as a Data Operator and earning Rs.13,000/-, but the fact remains that in the accident he has suffered - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10695 MFA No. 115 of 2016 fractures to the wrist as well as nasal bone and as per the Doctor, it has resulted in a 11% disability to the whole body. Though he is not entitled for any compensation under the head loss of future earning, but definitely he is entitled for enhancement of compensation as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the claimant under various heads, except medical expenses and future medical expenses. Accordingly the claimant has made out a case and on re-determination, the claimant is entitled for re-assessed compensation which reads as under: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs. By this Court In Rs. 1. Pain and sufferings 80,000-00 1,00,000-00 2. Medical expenses 20,000-00 20,000-00 3. Food, nourishment, attendant and transportation 20,000-00 25,000-00 4. Loss of income during laid up period 20,000-00 30,000-00 5. Future medical expenses 30,000-00 30,000-00 6. Loss of amenities in life 50,000-00 75,000-00 TOTAL 2,20,000-00 2,80,000-00 16. On re-assessment, the claimant is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as against - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10695 MFA No. 115 of 2016 Rs.2,20,000/-. The compensation now re-determined shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. 17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii) The judgment and award dated 05.10.2015 in MVC.No.2182/2013, passed by MACT, XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore (SCCH-22), is hereby modified. iii) The finding of the Tribunal fastening 25% contributory negligence on the claimant is set aside. Respondent No.1-Insurer is liable to pay the entire compensation. iv) The claimant is entitled to re-determined compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10695 MFA No. 115 of 2016 v) The respondent No.1/Insurer shall deposit the re-determined compensation along with interest stated supra, after deducting 75% of the compensation already been deposited in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. vi) Upon deposit, the entire amount shall be released in favor of the appellant-claimant on proper identification. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK/RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2