- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8217 OF 2015(MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.266 OF 2016(MV-I) IN MFA No. 8217/2015 BETWEEN: SMT. SHALINI @ JAYANTHI W/O SRIKANTH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT IMMADIHALLI WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 066. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M. BABU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHESH P S/O PILLAPPA, MAJOR NO. 126, INDIRA NAGAR ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DIST-562 106. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER R.O, NO. 2-B, UNITY BUILDING Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 ANNEXE MISSION ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. R. RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O/DT. 25.04.2026 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3008/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & MACT (SCCH-09), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 266/2016 BETWEEN: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. UNITY BUILDINGS ANNEXE BANGALORE-27, THROUGH THIRD PARTY APPEAL HUB M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. C. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHALINI @ JAYANTHI W/O SRIKANTH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT IMMADI HALLI WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 066. 2. MAHESH P S/O PILLAPPA MAJOR IN AGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 NO.126, INDIRANAGAR ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TQ. BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 107. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. BABU., ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O/DT. 16.03.2018 SERVICE FO NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED17.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3008/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & 26TH ACMM, BENGALURU, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.10,71,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M NADAF) These two appeals being MFA No.8217/2015 by the claimant and MFA No.266/2016 by the Insurer, calling in question the Judgment and Award dated 17.08.2015 in MVC No.3008/2014 passed by the Judge, Court of Small - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 Causes & XXVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru1 (SCCH-09). 2. The Tribunal under the impugned Judgment and award, granted compensation of Rs.10,71,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Claimant is in appeal on quantum and the Insurer is in appeal on contributory negligence. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, injury sustained by Smt.Shalini @ Jayanthi and liability to pay the compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute is with respect to quantum by the claimant and contributory negligence by the Insurer. 5. The facts germane to file this appeal are as under: 1 for short, 'the Tribunal' - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 In an accident occurred on 05.03.2014 at about 3:00 pm, while the claimant was proceeding on the motorcycle as a pillion, a Bolero Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-51 B- 6956 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the claimant who was a pillion fell on the road and suffered severe injuries, resulting in disability. Accordingly, she filed Claim Petition seeking compensation. 6. Respondent No.1 - owner of the Bolero Goods vehicle though served, remained unrepresented and placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 - Insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed statement of objections. Besides denying the claim petition averments, the Insurer has taken a defence that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider, so also disputed the driving license of the driver of the Bolero Goods Vehicle and the permit of the said vehicle and further contended that in view of violation of the policy - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 condition, the Insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. 7. The Tribunal having considered the rival submissions, framed in all three issues. Issue No.1 is with respect to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Bolero Goods Vehicle. The Tribunal answered the said issue in the Affirmative holding that it is the driver of the Bolero Goods Vehicle who is negligent in driving the vehicle and causing the accident and proceeded to award compensation of Rs.10,71,000/- considering the income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- per month and 25% disability, under various heads with interest @ 6% per annum. It is this Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is called in question in these appeals by the Claimant as well as the Insurer. 8. Heard, Sri.M.Babu, learned counsel appearing for the claimant and Sri.C.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 9. Sri.C.R.Ravishankar, with all vehemence relying on the Spot Mahazar (Ex.P2) submits that the accident had occurred in the middle of the road. The rider of the motorcycle should have been more circumspect and cautious while riding the motorcycle. In that view of the matter, he has contributed to the accident and the Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and sought to allow the appeal filed by the Insurer. 10. Per contra, Sri.Babu, with all vehemence submits that there is nothing forthcoming in the spot mahazar as to indicate that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent. Even there is nothing stated in the spot mahazar that the accident had occurred in the middle of the road. Further the Insurer has not taken any pain to examine any independent witness to substantiate its claim regarding the manner of accident now urged before the Court. In that view of the matter, the appeal by the Insurer on the ground of contributory negligence is liable to be dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 11. So far as enhancement is concerned, learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/-. Admittedly, the accident has occurred in 2014 and as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for settlement of disputes before the Lok-Adalat, the income is Rs.8,500/- per month for the year 2014 and the same may kindly be considered while considering the loss of future income. A feeble attempt has been made by learned counsel to consider the disability at more than 25% i.e., at 30%. 12. Having heard the rival submissions, we have perused both the appeal paper as well as the Trial Court record. 13. The following points would arise for consideration: (1) Whether the Insurer has made out any case to fasten contributory negligence on the rider of the motorcycle? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 (2) Whether the Claimant has made out any case for enhancement of compensation? 14. Our answer to both the points for consideration is Partly in the Affirmative, for the following: REASONS 15. POINT NO.1: The entire argument of Sri.C.R.Ravishankar is on the spot mahazar. A perusal of the spot mahazar clearly shows that there is nothing to indicate that the accident has occurred in the middle of the road. What is stated in the mahazar is, white paint found in the middle of the road, perhaps the same may be the dividing line between the road. Neither the motorcycle nor the Bolero Goods Vehicle were on the spot. The Bolero Goods vehicle was found as per the mahazar report on the extreme edge of the Northern side and the motorcycle was found on the extreme edge of the Southern side. The road is stated to be running East to West. If that is to be considered, both the vehicles are found on the extreme left side of their direction. In that view of the matter, it - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 becomes very hard for this Court to consider the manner in which the accident had occurred according to the argument of Sri.C.R.Ravishankar. However, considering the fact that both the vehicles are damaged extensively, in the absence of any contra evidence and taking into consideration the police records and the damage sustained to both the vehicles, on the principle of res-ipso-loquitor, we hold that rider of the motorcycle has contributed 30% and the driver of the Bolero Goods Vehicle has contributed 70% to the accident. However, the fact remains that the claimant was a Pillion. It is settled position of law that whenever there is an accident between two vehicles, the claimant can chose to file petition against any of the vehicle. If anything found against another vehicle, the Insurer of the Vehicle against whom the claim petition is filed can pay the entire amount and recover the same either from the Insurer of the opponent vehicle or in the event if there is any dispute regarding coverage of insurance, then from the insured of the said vehicle. In - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 that view of the matter, we are answering Point No.1 Partly in the Affirmative. However, in view of the involvement of two vehicle, we are directing the Insurer to pay the entire compensation with liberty to recover 30% in view of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, either from the Insurer of the motorcycle or from the insured. 16. POINT NO.2: So far as enhancement is concerned, we find force in the argument of Sri.Babu. Admittedly, the accident happened in 2014. As per the chart supra, the income fixed for the year 2014 is Rs.8,500/-. After going through the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, we are satisfied with the compensation awarded under other heads, except under the head loss of future income and loss of income during laid-up period in view of taking higher income. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded under both the head requires re-determination. Accordingly, we - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 answer the point for consideration in favor of claimant, Partly in the Affirmative. 17. In view of taking higher income, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under two heads stated supra requires re-determination, which is as follows: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs. By this Court In Rs. 1. Pain and sufferings 60,000-00 60,000-00 2. Attendant charges, nutritious expenses & transportation charges 8,000-00 8,000-00 3. Medical expenses 5,00,000-00 5,00,000-00 4. Loss of future income due to permanent disability 3,78,000-00 4,59,000-00 (8,500 x 12 x 18 x 25%) 5. Loss of income during laid up period 35,000-00 42,500-00 (8,500 x 5) 6. Loss of future amenities and happiness 40,000-00 40,000-00 7. Future medical expenses 50,000-00 50,000-00 TOTAL 10,71,000-00 11,59,500-00 18. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for re- determined compensation of Rs.11,59,500/- rounded off at Rs.11,60,000/- as against Rs.10,71,000/- awarded by - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 the Tribunal with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Both the appeals are allowed in part. ii. The Judgment and award dated 17.08.2015 in MVC No.3008/2014 passed by the Judge, Court of Small Causes & XXVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is modified. The liability of the Insurer is fastened at 70% and 30% on the rider of the motorcycle, as the rider of the motorcycle has contributed 30% negligence to the accident. iii. The amount in deposit in the Insurer appeal shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith for disbursement. iv. The claimant is entitled for re-determined compensation of Rs.11,60,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016 v. The Insurer of the Bolero Goods Vehicle shall deposit the entire re-determined compensation along with accrued interest stated supra before the concerned Tribunal, within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, with a liberty to recover 30% of the compensation either from the Insurer of the motorcycle or from the Insured. vi. The order of disbursement of compensation is unaltered. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4