- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10694 MFA No. 6919 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. 6919 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. B. BABU, S/O. M. BASHA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: CENTRING WORK, R/AT NO.308, DARGA MOHALLA, CASTROL GREEN STREET COMPOUND, NEAR K.R. PURA RAILWAY STATION, DOORAVANINAGARA POST, BENGALURU – 560 016. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH S.A., S/O ANJINAPPA, K SATHYAVARA POST & VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 114. 2. THE MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GEN INSURANCE CO LTD., HOSUR MAIN ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, MADIVALA, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 068. …RESPONDENTS Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10694 MFA No. 6919 of 2016 (BY SRI. D. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 22.07.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3768/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH 18) & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY 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 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard, Sri.Suresh M.Latur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.D.Manjunath, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Vide order dated 22.07.2022, notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 2. The claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation challenging the judgment and award dated 15.07.2016 in MVC.No.3768/2014 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Court of Small Causes (SCCH-18) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10694 MFA No. 6919 of 2016 & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. In an accident occurred on 09.08.2014, the claimant suffered injuries resulting in disability to the extent of 28.4%. The injuries suffered by the claimant are as under: “1. Abrasion over the right hand two in number measuring 2 cms. 2. Abrasion over left hand measuring 3 cms. 3. Fracture of lower end of the left radius”. 4. The claimant examined a doctor to substantiate the disability, who has stated that the disability is to the extent of 28.4% to the left upper limb and 9.46% to the whole body. The Tribunal having considered the entire material placed on record, considered the income at Rs.7,000/- per month and applied multiplier ‘15’, taking 9% as disability to the whole body and awarded compensation under various heads in total a sum of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10694 MFA No. 6919 of 2016 Rs.2,17,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. However, on the premise that the rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle without valid driving license, saddled 25% of contributory negligence on the claimant and 75% on the insurer. Calling in question the finding on contributory negligence and the quantum of compensation, the claimant is in appeal. 5. Sri.Suresh M.Latur., argued mainly on two points. Firstly, the Tribunal in the absence of any substantial evidence placed by the insurer in consonance with their defence, erred in fastening liability, on the rider of the motorcycle that is the claimant, stating that in the absence of valid driving license, he was riding the motorcycle, as such he has contributed to the accident. He further submits that the entire charge sheet was filed against RW.1, who was the owner of the vehicle. He further submits that respondent-RW.1 in his cross- examination admitted that police have filed charge sheet - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10694 MFA No. 6919 of 2016 against him stating that he has caused the accident and he further admitted that has not challenged the charge sheet. He further submits that the said witness has admitted that he has pleaded guilty and paid the fine ordered by the Court and he has not filed any complaint against the claimant stating that he has caused the accident and it is he who is responsible for the accident. In these circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and requires to be set aside. 6. To buttress his contention he refers to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SUDHIR KUMAR RANA V. SURINDER SINGH AND 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 1 2008(12)SCC 436 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10694 MFA No. 6919 of 2016 would not be a stand alone ground to hold that he is guilty of contributory negligence. 7. Secondly on enhancement of compensation, learned counsel submits that admittedly the accident had occurred in the year 2014. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settling matters before the Lok-Adalat, income fixed for the year 2014 is Rs.8,500/-. The Tribunal has taken Rs.7,000/- which is when compared to the income stated in the chart is on the downside. Accordingly, the income must be considered as stated in the chart. He further submits that the claimant was working as a centering worker, in these circumstances, the disability stated by the Doctor be taken as it is. He further submits that the compensation awarded under all the heads, except medical expenses is very sparse and requires enhancement, accordingly sought to allow the appeal on both grounds stated supra. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10694 MFA No. 6919 of 2016 8. In converse, Sri.D.Manjunath., with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal after considering the entire material placed on record, has come to a conclusion that the claimant who was riding the motorcycle without license has also contributed to the accident and accordingly saddled 25% negligence on him, hence the same does not require interference. 9. So far as quantum is concerned, considering the injuries and the disability suffered, the Tribunal has awarded appropriate compensation to the total extent of Rs.2,17,000/-, which is more than adequate and on both counts, the claimant is not entitled for any relief in this appeal and sought to dismiss the appeal. 10. Having considered the submissions, this Court perused the entire appeal papers as well as trial Court record. 11. The points that arise for consideration are as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10694 MFA No. 6919 of 2016 (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? 12. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: Partly in the Affirmative, for the following: REASONS 13. Point No.1: In view of the admission of respondent No.1 in his evidence that he has pleaded guilty and admitted the accident and paid fine in terms of the order passed by the concerned judicial Magistrate, there remains nothing more to state against the claimant that too contributed to the evidence, when there is no contra evidence produced to establish the rash and negligent riding by the claimant. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10694 MFA No. 6919 of 2016 14. 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 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.” 15. In view of the same, mere absence of license cannot give rise to a defence to the insurer to contend that the claimant had too contributed to the accident. In view of the settled position of law stated supra, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and required to be set aside and accordingly, it is set-aside. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative i.e., in favor of the claimant. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10694 MFA No. 6919 of 2016 16. Point No.2: So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.7,000/- per month. In the absence of any proof of income, the income fixed under the Chart stated supra must have been considered. A perusal of compensation awarded under all the heads when compared to the injuries suffered and disability resulted are very sparse. The Tribunal ought to have considered the disability at minimum of 15%, considering the fact that the claimant was working as a Centering worker which requires frequent use of hands and requires a hard laborious work while discharging the work and fracture to the lower end of left radius would cause hindrance in doing his work, which was doing earlier to the accident. In these circumstances, if the percentage of disability is taken at 15% to the whole body, it would meet the ends of justice. 17. In view of higher income, and rise in disability the compensation awarded under each head, except medical expenses and future medical expenses requires - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10694 MFA No. 6919 of 2016 reassessment. Accordingly, on re-determination, the claimant is entitled to the compensation as under: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs. By this Court In Rs. 1. Loss of future income (8,500 x 12 x 15 x 15/100) 1,14,000-00 2,29,500-00 2. Pain and sufferings 30,000-00 40,000-00 3. Loss of amenities 25,000-00 40,000-00 4. Attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges 5,000-00 10,000-00 5. Medical expenses 15,000-00 15,000-00 6. Loss of income during laid up period and rest period (8,500 x 4) 18,000-00 34,000-00 7. Future medical expenses 10,000-00 10,000-00 TOTAL 2,17,000-00 3,78,500-00 18. On re-assessment, the claimant is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.3,78,500/- as against Rs.2,17,000/-. The compensation now re-determined shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. 19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10694 MFA No. 6919 of 2016 ii) The judgment and award dated 15.07.2016 in MVC.No.3768/2014 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Court of Small Causes (SCCH-18) & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bengaluru, is hereby modified. iii) The finding of the Tribunal fastening 25% contributory negligence on the claimant is set aside. Respondent No.2-Insurer is liable to pay the entire compensation. iv) The claimant is entitled for a re-determined compensation of Rs.3,78,500/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. v) The respondent No.2/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 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10694 MFA No. 6919 of 2016 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/TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8