- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7920 MFA No. 4925 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4925 OF 2017(MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. LINGARAJU S/O LATE HANUMANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.48, MANNE POST & VILLAGE, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL TALUK …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INS. CO.LTD., 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 2. MRS. KODAMMA W/O KALLUVEERAIAH, OBHVERAHALLY, HOLAVANAHALLY HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR, KARNATAKA-572121 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.02.2022 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7920 MFA No. 4925 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.293/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY, SCCH-14, BENGALURU, 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 MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 06.01.2017 passed in MVC No.293/2016, by the XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bangalore, seeking modification of the said award. 2. Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7920 MFA No. 4925 of 2017 3. The appellant/injured claimant met with an accident on 28.12.2015 and filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, has awarded amount of Rs.3,64,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from date of petition till its realization attributing negligence on the appellant at 40%. 4. The case of the appellant is that while he was proceeding on TVS XL Super moped bearing registration No.KA-52-H-9894, the Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.KA-06-TA-0177 and No.KA-06-TA-4464, driven in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules, suddenly took right turn and dashed his vehicle. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. The charge sheet is filed against the driver of tractor. However, the Tribunal, considering the manner of the accident, fixed up the contributory negligence on the appellant at 40% and on the driver of the tractor and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7920 MFA No. 4925 of 2017 trailer at 60% and accordingly directed the insurance company to deposit their share. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant preferred appeal mainly contending that though there is no negligence on his part, contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal is erroneous and excessive. Hence, it is to be modified. Even the police filed charge sheet against the respondent-driver of the tractor. As such, the question of assessing the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant does not arise and the amount granted under the other heads is meager. Appellant was running a hotel business and earning Rs.20,000 p.m., but it was not considered by the Tribunal and so also he examined the doctor as PW.2, who assessed the disability at 33% to the right lower limb, but the Tribunal has taken only 10%. Thus, he requested for enhancement of the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurer stated that the Tribunal has rightly considered the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7920 MFA No. 4925 of 2017 involvement of both the vehicles and fixed up the contributory negligence and he also relied upon a citation reported in MFA.No.4323/2019 dated 12.09.2023 and requested this Court to modify the contributory negligence of both the vehicles as 50% on each of them. He further stated that the Tribunal has observed that the claimant met with an accident in the year 2015, but he renewed his hotel license in the year 2016. It indicates that he was continuing in hotel business even after the accident and he also stated that the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability. Thus, he requested to confirm the order of the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana vs. Surinder Singh and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 436, in which it was held as follows: "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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7920 MFA No. 4925 of 2017 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." 8. He also relied upon another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Palariya vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd, reported in Civil Appeal No.9114/2018 dated 31.08.2018, in which it was held as follows: "(5) The finding of the High Court of contributory negligence on the ground that the deceased was driving the vehicle without a driving license is equally unsustainable. Driving without a valid driving license may expose the claimant(s) to other liabilities but no inference of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7920 MFA No. 4925 of 2017 contributory negligence can be arrived on that basis." 9. Relying upon the judgment in MFA.No.4323/2019 dated 12.09.2023, learned counsel for the respondent- insurer argued that the contributory negligence of both the vehicle is to be fixed as 50%. 10. I have already mentioned about the manner of accident in the above paragraph and it need not to be repeated. Admittedly, the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the tractor and trailer and as rightly pointed by the Apex Court, he is liable for criminal prosecution for non-possessing driving license and that itself is not a reason for assessing contributory negligence on the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurer further stated that the accident occurred in the middle of the road. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to fix the contributory negligence of a motorcycle at 20% and that of the driver of the tractor and trailer as 80%. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7920 MFA No. 4925 of 2017 11. Though it is stated that the appellant was aged about 48 years and running a hotel business and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m., he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2015, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.9,000/- p.m. as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The Tribunal has considered appellant's evidence in the cross-examination and has taken his age as 53 years. As such, the multiplier to be adopted is '11'. 12. The appellant has sustained fracture of shaft of right femur and he also underwent surgery with implants and he examined the doctor as PW.2. He is stated that the appellant underwent another surgery for enhancing the union of fracture. He was hospitalized as an inpatient for total 15 days and he requires rest for 3 to 3½ months and thus assessed the permanent disability as 33% of the right lower limb and 11% of the whole body. So, 1/3rd of the 33% comes to 11%. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7920 MFA No. 4925 of 2017 13. Therefore, the loss of future income comes to Rs.1,30,680/- (Rs.9,000x12x11x11%). In view of this award, the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under separate head 'disability' is disallowed. 14. The award of Rs.73,647/- rounded of to Rs.74,000/- towards medical expenses by the Tribunal being based on medical records, it is confirmed. 15. Considering the nature of injuries and period of hospitalization, which is 15 days and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.60,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering and to award amount of Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities. 16. The appellant might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 4 months having regard to the injuries suffered by him and Tribunal granted Rs.36,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period and it is accepted. Therefore, he is also entitled for Rs.40,000/- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7920 MFA No. 4925 of 2017 towards transportation, extra nourishment and attending charges as against Rs.20,000/-. 17. Relying upon the evidence of PW.2, the Tribunal has rightly granted future medical expenses for removal of implants as Rs.25,000/- and it is confirmed. 18. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: Sl. No. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Pain and Sufferings 40,000 60,000 2. Medical expenses 74,000 74,000 3. Transportation, attendant and nourishment expenses 20,000 40,000 4. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment 36,000 36,000 5. Loss of future earnings due to disability 1,19,000 1,30,680 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7920 MFA No. 4925 of 2017 6. Loss of amenities of life 25,000 30,000 7. Future Medical expenses 25,000 25,000 8. Disability 25,000 --- Total 3,64,000 3,95,680 19. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.3,95,680/- (80% of it to be paid by the insurance company) as against Rs.3,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 20. The insurance company has already deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal. As this Court has fixed the contributory negligence of driver of tractor at 80%, the insurance company is directed to deposit the balance amount with interest at the rate of 6% within a period of one month from the date of this order before the Tribunal. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7920 MFA No. 4925 of 2017 21. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on the same. SD/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52