- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29713 MFA No. 1258 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2637 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2637 OF 2017 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 1258/2017: BETWEEN: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY IT’S MANAGER MR. A.R. LAKSHMINARAYAN. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANUP SEETHA RAMA RAO B C ., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SEETHA RAMA RAO B C ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O RAMASWAMY RESIDENT OF BEVINAMARA COLONY KANNAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 067. 2. MR. K. ANANTHA RAJU & CO., C/O MADHUSUDANA MOTORS GULPET, KOLAR TOWN, PIN-563 101. (OWNER OF BUS NO.KA.07/A-0565) …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29713 MFA No. 1258 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2637 of 2017 (BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4474/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 13TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.12,93,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 2637/2017: BETWEEN: SRI. DEVARAJU S/O RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT BEVINAMARA COLONY KANNAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 067 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K. ANANTHA RAJU & CO., C/O MADHUSUDHANA MOTORS, GULPET, KOLAR TOWN – 563 101 REP. BY IT’S PROPRIETOR SRI K ANANTHA RAJU. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027 REP. BY IT’S MANAGER ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SEETHA RAMA RAO B C ., ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD:18.03.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29713 MFA No. 1258 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2637 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 04.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4474/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 13TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT These appeals are filed against the judgment and award dated 04.10.2016 passed by the XIII Additional Small Cause Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC No.4474 of 2015. 2. The injured claimant, met with an accident on 27.01.2015, and filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.12,93,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29713 MFA No. 1258 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2637 of 2017 3. Aggrieved by the said order, M.F.A. No.1258 of 2017 is preferred by the insurance company in which it is mainly contended that Tribunal erred fixing the liability only on the driver of a bus. Petitioner-claimant was riding the motor cycle with two pillion riders and met accident on 27.01.2015. The Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence of the claimant in carrying two pillion riders and it is in contravention of Section 128(1) of Motor Vehicles Act. The inconvenient riding of the motorcycle while carrying two pillion riders presupposes negligence on his part and it resulted in accident. It is contended that the Tribunal relied upon interested testimony of PW1 and police records, which are created with the help of claimant-rider of motor cycle, and interest is to be granted at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 9%. Thus, requested for modification of the order of the Tribunal. 4. M.F.A. No.2637 of 2017 is preferred by the petitioner- claimant against the same award for enhancement of compensation in which it is mainly contended that the Tribunal considered whole body disability at 50%, though it is a case of amputation and medical officer also suggested that there is functional disability of 100%. It is contended that the Tribunal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29713 MFA No. 1258 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2637 of 2017 granted only Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities, which is meagre amount, and Rs.40,000/- for the pain and suffering though there was prolonged treatment, and no amount is granted for fixing artificial limb, as it requires a periodical replacement. Thus, requested for an enhancement of the compensation. 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 6. The manner of accident shows that while petitioner was going towards his native village Arinaganahalli from Kolar by riding Hero Honda splendor motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-18-J-0996 along with his wife and son and reached at near Byre Gowda Engineering College on Kolar-Srinivasapura road, at that time a bus bearing registration No.KA-07-A-0565 came from opposite direction and dashed to petitioner’s motor cycle. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was aged 37 years, working as a heavy vehicle driver and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Chare sheet is filed against the driver of the bus. It is stated that one of the pillion riders is aged 12 years, minor child. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29713 MFA No. 1258 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2637 of 2017 7. Learned counsel for the claimant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Siddique and another Vs. National Insurance company Limited and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 520, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: 13. XXX. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. Section 194C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29713 MFA No. 1258 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2637 of 2017 degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked.” and also contended that the petitioner was riding motor cycle along with two pillion riders, he could not control the vehicle and thus, there is no contributory negligence on his part. It is for the insurance company to plead and prove contributory negligence. But in the written statement, the insurance company has contended that accident occurred only due to the negligence of rider of the motor cycle and the plea of contributory negligence is not taken at the earliest point of time. 9. Admittedly, charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus. Neither the petitioner or the respondent have examined any eye witnesses to prove that accident occurred only due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly held that there is no - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29713 MFA No. 1258 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2637 of 2017 contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal. 10. The petitioner was aged 37 years at the relevant point of time. Though the petitioner has stated that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, he has not filed income proof to that effect. He met with an accident in the year 2015. Therefore, his notional income is to be taken at Rs.9,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He was aged 37 years and the relevant multiplier is 15. 11. Exhibit P5 is the wound certificate, Exhibit P6 is the discharge summary, and case sheet is filed under Exhibit P18. Petitioner also examined doctor as P.W.2 and he stated that petitioner sustained following injuries : “a. Type IIIB open comminuted and segmental fracture of tibia and fibula b. Type II open comminuted fracture shaft of femur distal third, c. Fracture of both bone of right forearm middle third. He further stated that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29713 MFA No. 1258 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2637 of 2017 a. Closed reduction and internal fixation with rush nail for right radius and ulna b. Wound debridement of right lower limb c. For right leg wound debridement and vacuum suction drainage done on 10.2.2015.” 12. It is stated that the doctor could not save his right limb and it was amputated at knee level on 01.03.2015. PW2 assessed the right lower limb disability as 75% and right upper limb at 36% and whole body disability as 50%. PW2 is a treated doctor and he stated that there is functional disability of 100%. But the Tribunal erred in taking the disability as 50% without any basis. Admittedly, petitioner was a heavy vehicle driver and he sustained amputation of the right leg at knee level and there is no possibility that he can do driving of any vehicle during his lifetime at any point of time. 13. P.W.2-Doctor has assessed the functional disability of the petitioner at 100% on the ground that right leg was amputated at Knee, but the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability as 50% without any basis. Even in this case, considering the occupation of the petitioner, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take the functional disability as - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29713 MFA No. 1258 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2637 of 2017 100% as per the citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in (2011)1 SCC 343 and in case of R. Halle Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., in civil Appeal No(s) of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s) of 2026 decided on 18.03.2026. As the petitioner sustained more than 20% disability, he is entitled for future prospects as per the citation in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Abdul, son of Mehaboob Tahasildar and Others (M.F.A. No.103807/2016 c/w. M.F.A. No.103835/2016 decided on 27.05.2022). The Petitioner was aged 37 years at the time of accident and therefore, he is entitled for 40% towards future prospects. Thus, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.22,68,000/- (9,000 + 40% x 12 x 15 x 100%). The petitioner is also entitled for Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.25,000 for loss of amenities, Rs.20,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges The Tribunal granted Rs.5,38,500/- for medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses, which needs no interference. Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29713 MFA No. 1258 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2637 of 2017 Rs.29,21,500/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.12,93,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of future income 22,68,000/- 2. Medical expenses 5,38,500/- 3. Pain and Suffering 50,000/- 4. Loss of amenities 25,000/- 5. Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 20,000/- 6. Future medical expenses 20,000/- Total 29,21,500/- 15. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) M.F.A. No.1258 of 2017 filed by the insurance company is dismissed. M.F.A. No.2637 of 2017 filed by the claimant is allowed in part. (ii) The claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.29,21,500/-. (iii) The insurance company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal, and therefore, they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.16,28,000/- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29713 MFA No. 1258 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2637 of 2017 with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it. (v) The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78