- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2692 OF 2020 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3923 OF 2020 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 2692/2020 BETWEEN: SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. SHIVAMURTHY, R/O KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE - 562 114. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RUKMINI TOWERS NO. 3/1, PLATFORM ROAD RAILWAY APPROACH ROAD, SEHSADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 560 020 REP. BY ITS MANAGER. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 2. SRI. P. PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O P. VENUGOPAL R/A NO. 185, 5TH CROSS SHANTINIKETHAN NRI LAYOUT, K.R. PURAM BANGALORE - 560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.4944/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT. IN MFA NO. 3923/2020 BETWEEN: VIJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, M/O MARIYAPPA R/O NEAR GEF EYE HOSPITAL, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE - 562 114. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 AND: 1. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RUKMINI TOWERS, NO.3/1, PLATFORM ROAD/ RAILWAY APPROACH ROAD, SHESHADRI PURAM BANGALORE - 560 020, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. SRI. P. PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O P. VENUGOPAL R/AT NO.188, 5TH CROSS, SHANTINIKETHAN, NRI LAYOUT, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DTD 10.04.2023, APPEAL AGAINST R2 IS DISMISSED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.4943/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-14. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 22.01.2020 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru City, SCH-14 (for short, the 'Tribunal'), in M.V.C. Nos.4944/2017 and 4943/2017, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the appellants- claimants. 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 14.06.2017, at about 4.30 a.m., the petitioners, after completing their duty at EMC2 DELL Company, Mahadevapura, Nekkundi, were proceeding towards Hosakote on a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-03/HT-371. When they reached near the service road after crossing Lanco Toll, Hosakote, the driver of a Toyota Etios car bearing Reg. No. KA-53/C-3856 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioners' motorcycle. As a result, both the petitioners sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, they were shifted to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 Srinivasa Specialty Hospital, Hosakote, where they took treatment as in-patients and underwent several operations. Subsequently, they lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police and later filed claim petitions before the Tribunal, i.e., M.V.C. No. 4944/2017 filed by the appellant in M.F.A. No. 2692/2020 and M.V.C. No. 4943/2017 filed by the appellant in M.F.A. No. 3923/2023, as stated supra. 4. On assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the petitioners and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,50,200/- in M.V.C.No.4943/2017 and Rs.4,25,320/- in M.V.C.No.4944/2017. Aggrieved by the same and seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded, both the claimants have preferred these appeals. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company in both the appeals. 6. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals primarily contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 compensation under different heads, particularly under the heads of 'pain and suffering' and 'medical expenses'. According to him, although the claimant in M.V.C. No.4944/2017 produced medical bills amounting to Rs.1,37,396/-, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in attributing 15% contributory negligence to the petitioners in both the claim petitions. He also submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the disability at 12% and 8%, respectively, in the two cases, despite the evidence of PW.2 - Doctor, as well as the medical records and X-ray reports marked as Exs.P9 to P12 in both the cases. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing both the appeals and enhancing the compensation awarded. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company in both the cases vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the appellants and submitted that, upon a meticulous examination of the evidence on record, the Tribunal rightly fixed 15% contributory negligence on the claimants in their respective claim petitions and also awarded just and reasonable compensation in both the cases. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeals. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submission made by the respective parties so also perused the documents. 8. As could be gathered from the records, the occurrence of the accident in question and the coverage of the insurance policy are not disputed in these cases. The Tribunal, relying on the evidence of PW.1 in both the cases, came to the conclusion that the accident in question occurred at about 4.00 a.m. on a National Highway and that the accident spot was situated at a permitted 'U' turn and the accident was caused after the claimants taking a turn from the left side to the right side of the Highway and while proceeding towards the service road. 9. The Tribunal also noted that the accident caused when PW.1 was crossing the Highway on the motorcycle along with a pillion rider, at a distance of about 4 feet from the service road. A perusal of the IMV report at Ex.P4 in M.V.C. No.4943/2017 reveals that the front engine bonnet, grille, bumper, left-side headlight assembly, front left wheel, front left-side windscreen, and front wheel disc of the offending car had sustained damage. The motorcycle had also suffered damage to its left- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 side front footrest, body cover, and front indicator. On the basis of the said material, the Tribunal concluded that both vehicles had contributed to the occurrence of the accident. It was of the view that the rider of the motorcycle, namely PW.1, had failed to exercise due care and caution while riding the vehicle and that the accident could have been avoided had he been more vigilant. Accordingly, the Tribunal attributed 15% contributory negligence to the petitioners. 10. Upon a careful examination of the evidence of PW.1, the IMV report, and the spot mahazar, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the above aspects of the matter. However, the fact remains the petitioner had taken a left turn on the Highway at a place where there was a zebra crossing/permitted 'U' turn. In such circumstances, fixing 15% contributory negligence on the petitioner would not be justified. In my considered opinion, although the petitioner did contribute to the occurrence of the accident, such negligence can be assessed only to the extent of 10% instead of 15%. Accordingly, the negligence attributable to the offending vehicle is enhanced to 90% instead of 85%, as held by the Tribunal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 11. As regard to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in MVC No.4944/2017, on assessment of evidence, the Tribunal has awarded the following sums as compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Pain and sufferings 50,000 2. Loss of future income 1,84,320 3. Medical expenses 75,000 4. Future medical expenses 20,000 5. Loss of income during the laid up period 48,000 6. Conveyance, food, nourishment, attendant charges 8,000 7. Loss of amenities in life 40,000 Total 4,25,320 12. The Tribunal, after considering the medical evidence of PW2 - Doctor and the employment record of the petitioner at Ex.P12 fixed disability at 12%. I have carefully examined the evidence of PW2 - Doctor and the document including x-ray report. On perusal of the same, it could be gathered that the disability to the whole body of the petitioner can be assessed 15% instead of 12%. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 13. The Tribunal considered the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/-. According to the learned counsel, the employer of the petitioner was examined before the Court as PW3 and he has deposed that he was paying salary of Rs.18,400/-. However there is no such reliable document placed by the employer. Hence, in my considered view income has to be considered as per the chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2017 would be Rs.11,000/-. 14. As the claimant was aged 31 years, a multiplier of '16' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,16,800/- (11,000 x 12 x 16 x 15%) towards 'loss of future income'. 15. On careful perusal medical bills, in my considered view, the compensation under the head 'medical expenses' has to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.75,000/-. 16. As a consequence, the amount of Rs.48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' would also stand enhanced to Rs.66,000/- (11,000 X 6). - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 17. Having regard to the length of the stay of the claimant in the hospital, the claimant would also be entitled to 'Conveyance, food and nourishment and attendant charges' at Rs.10,000/- as against the sum of Rs.8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The sums awarded under other heads of compensation granted by the Tribunal, remain unaltered. 19. 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 50,000 50,000 2. Loss of future income 1,84,320 3,16,800 3. Medical expenses 75,000 1,00,000 4. Future medical expenses 20,000 20,000 5. Loss of income during the laid up period 48,000 66,000 6. Conveyance, food, nourishment, attendant 8,000 10,000 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 charges 7. Loss of amenities in life 40,000 40,000 Total 4,25,320 6,02,800 20. Thus, the claimant/appellant in MFA No.2692/2020 is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.6,02,800/- as against Rs.4,25,320/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 21. As regards to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.4943/2017, the Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has awarded the following sums as compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Pain and sufferings 35,000 2. Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 6,000 3. Medical expenses 40,000 4. Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability 1,15,200 5. Loss of amenities 30,000 6. Loss of earnings during laid up period 24,000 Total 2,50,200 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 22. The Tribunal after considering the medical evidence, assessed the disability at 8%. On careful examination of the evidence of Doctor and medical reports including X-ray, I am of the considered view that disability could be assessed at 10% instead of 8%. 23. Further the Tribunal has considered income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was working as security guard and was earning a salary of Rs.12,000/-. However without any authenticated documents to that effect, in my considered view income has to be considered as per the chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2017 would be Rs.11,000/-. Thus, the compensation is recalculated as under. 24. As the claimant was aged 37 years, a multiplier of '15' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- (11,000 x 12 x 15 x 10%) towards 'loss of future income'. 25. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 towards 'pain and suffering' as against Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 26. As a consequence, the amount of Rs.24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' would also stand enhanced to Rs.33,000/- (11,000 X 3). 27. The sums awarded under other heads of compensation granted by the Tribunal, remains unaltered. 28. 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 35,000 40,000 2. Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 6,000 6,000 3. Medical expenses 40,000 40,000 4. Loss of future earning capacity due to 1,15,200 1,98,000 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26087 MFA No. 2692 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3923 of 2020 permanent disability 5. Loss of amenities 30,000 30,000 6. Loss of earnings during laid up period 24,000 33,000 Total 2,50,200 3,47,000 29. Thus, the claimant/appellant in MFA No.3923/2020 is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.3,47,000/- as against Rs.2,50,200/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 30. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded in both the appeals within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22