- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8720/2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MAHISH SUDHINDRA ALIAS M. SUDHINDRA S/O VENKATACHAR .M AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8 SRI. MUKHYAPRANA 4TH CROSS, AIR VIEW COLONY KONENA AGRAHARA VIMANAPURA, BANGALORE - 560017. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KALYAN R, ADV.,) AND: 1. UMASHANKAR MAJOR NO.304, EWS KHB COLONY 2ND STAGE, 2ND MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560079. 2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD NO 121, DICKENSON ROAD M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADV., FOR R2 R1 SERVED) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018 THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3052/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), 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 by the injured challenging the judgment and award dated 30.04.2018 passed in MVC.No.3052/2016 by the I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-11), (for short 'Tribunal'). 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Sri.Kalyan R., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in saddling the liability on the owner of the vehicle without directing the insurance company to pay the compensation and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018 recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.6,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the award of the compensation by the Tribunal on all other heads is on the lower side and is required to be enhanced appropriately by considering oral and documentary evidence on record. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in attributing 10% as contributory negligence to the appellant solely on the ground that he attempted to cross the road without using a zebra crossing. Such a finding is required to be interfered in this appeal. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the rider of the motorcycle did not have a valid and effective driving - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018 license and that the vehicle did not have a fitness certificate as on the date of the accident. It is submitted that the appellant was aged about 71 years at the time of the accident and has not produced any proof of income. Therefore, considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was fully justified in awarding just and fair compensation to the appellant, which does not call for any enhancement. It is further submitted that the appellant failed in his duty of care while crossing the road, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal and saddled the portion of the liability on him to the extent of 10%, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018 6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference?" 7. The material on record indicates that the appellant/claimant met with a road accident on 08.02.2016 and he was provided treatment at Manipal Hospital, Airport Road, Bengaluru from 09.02.2016 to 15.02.2016 and incurred substantial expenses. The injured appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. In support of his claim, he examined himself as a PW1 and also examined Dr.Anup Porthen John as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The respondent/insurance company examined its official as RW1 and got marked insurance policy as Ex.R1. The Tribunal assessed the evidence and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,54,645/- along with the interest @ of 8% per annum. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018 8. The Tribunal recorded a finding that as on the date of accident, the rider of the motorcycle did not have a valid and effective driving license and also the fitness certificate was not in force. Hence, the Tribunal ordered the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation. The Tribunal further recorded the finding that the appellant without exercising due care, crossed the road at a place where there was no zebra crossing and held that the appellant himself was negligent and had contributed to the accident to the extent of 10%. 9. I have perused the finding of the Tribunal at paragraph No.14. Having regard to the place where the claimant was crossing the road, it is an admitted fact that there was no zebra crossing and the accident occurred at about 10.30 p.m. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the claimant himself was negligent and contributed to the accident to some extent. Considering the said aspect, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant contributed to the accident to the extent of 10%. The said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018 finding does not call for any interference. The Tribunal further recorded the finding that the rider of the motorcycle did not have a valid and effective license and the vehicle involved in the accident did not possess a fitness certificate as on the date of the accident and proceeded to saddle the liability on the owner of the vehicle. It is to be noticed that the law on this aspect is well settled, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Swaran Singh and Others1 has held that, in cases of violation of the policy conditions, the insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. By applying the said principle of "pay and recovery", the impugned judgment and award to that extent is modified. 10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the injured at Rs.6,000/-. It is admitted fact that the 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018 appellant has not produced any evidence to substantiate the income. Hence, his income is notionally assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month by placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA. Insofar as the disability is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the disability of the appellant at 15% and awarded compensation accordingly. By considering oral evidence of PW2 and other medical records, I do not find any error in such assessment. It is not in dispute that the claimant was aged about 71 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 5, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability is as under: Rs.9,500 X 12 X 5 X 15% = Rs.85,500/-. 11. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the head of medical expenses remains unaltered. It is to be noticed that the Tribunal has erred in awarding lesser compensation under all other heads. Hence, for the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018 aforementioned reasons the compensation is reassessed as under: Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to 90% of the total compensation (Rs.4,96,450/-) i.e., Rs.4,46,805/- as against Rs.3,94,050/- awarded by the Tribunal. 2. 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 HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Pain & suffering 40,000 Loss of amenities 30,000 Medical expenses 2,92,450 Loss of income during treatment period (Rs.9500 X 3) 28,500 Loss of future income due to disability 85,500 Attendant charges, food and extra nourishing & conveyance etc. 20,000 Total 4,96,450 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018 the appellant-claimant would be entitled to 90% of total compensation (Rs.4,96,450/-) i.e., Rs.4,46,805/- as against Rs.3,94,050/- 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 is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest to the claimant within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) The respondent-insurance company is at liberty to recover the amount deposited by it from respondent No.1 in accordance with law. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018 f) Insofar as finding with regard to the contributory negligence by the Tribunal is upheld. g) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be made as per award of the Tribunal. h) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23