- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010163052020 NC: 2026:KHC:38564 MFA No. 1321 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1321 OF 2021(MV-I) BETWEEN: ANANDA G R S/O SWAMIGOWDA @ RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT GOWDAHALLI VILLAGE K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TQ MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVAKUMARA S/O SHIVALINGAIAH MAJOR R/AT NO.98, HULUKANAHUNDI VILLAGE T NARASIPURA TQ MYSORE DISTRICT-570 027. 2. CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INS. CO.LTD., R/P BY BRANCH MANAGER LEVEL 6, 9TH FLOOR, 4TH M BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 015. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010163052020 NC: 2026:KHC:38564 MFA No. 1321 of 2021 3. ASHOKA S/O NAGARAJU MAJOR R/AT GOWDAHALLI VILLAGE K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TQ, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438. 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., JLB ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM, MYSORE-570 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SMT. PADMA S UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4, NOTICE TO R1 & R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.12.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1413/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, SRIRANGAPATANA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.4,33,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.1413/2016 dated 12.09.2019, is in appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010163052020 NC: 2026:KHC:38564 MFA No. 1321 of 2021 2. The fact that the accident occurred and further fact that the offending vehicle was insured are not in dispute. 3. The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has awarded the following sums as compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards pain and suffering 50,000 2. Towards loss of amenities 30,000 3. Towards loss of future income 2,86,000 4. Towards attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges 17,000 5. Towards loss of income during laid up period and rest period 38,000 6. Towards medical expenses 4,04,000 7. Towards future medical expenses 40,000 Sub - Total 8,65,000 (-) 50% contributory negligence of the claimant 4,32,500 TOTAL 4,32,500 Rounded off to 4,33,000 4. It is the primary contention of learned counsel for the claimant that the Tribunal has grossly erred by attributing 50% negligence on the part of the claimant i.e., rider of motorcycle and 50% towards the driver of the offending canter. By placing reliance on charge sheet-Ex.P6, he contends that in - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010163052020 NC: 2026:KHC:38564 MFA No. 1321 of 2021 accusation column No.17, it is specifically stated that the driver of the offending canter parked the canter on the National Highway without any indicator and parking light. In such circumstance, the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the offending canter. Fuerther he contended that the claimant was riding his motorcycle on the extreme left side of the road by following traffic rules in the afternoon hours and due to the wrong parking of the offending vehicle by its driver, the accident occurred. Merely because the Police implicated the claimant in the charge sheet as accused No.2, itself does not arises presumption that the claimant equally contributed the negligence to the accident. As such, the said finding of the Tribunal is not sustainable. 5. Learned counsel further contended that since the Tribunal has assessed 20% disability, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.103807/2016 c/w MFA No.103835/2016 and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SIDRAM vs. UNITED INDIA - 2023 (3) SCC 439, ought to have awarded future prospects for the income of the claimant. He further contended that the Tribunal has also - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010163052020 NC: 2026:KHC:38564 MFA No. 1321 of 2021 erred in awarding meager compensation on all heads, which requires interference by this Court. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal is justified in attributing 50% negligence on the part of the claimant. According to him, the accident occurred in the afternoon hours at about 3:45 p.m. and it is the duty of the claimant to observe the movement of the vehicles and also about the vehicle which were parked ahead of his vehicle on the road. Moreover, the Police after investigating the case, laid charge sheet against both the claimant and driver of offending canter. In such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly attributed 50% negligence on the part of claimant and driver of offending canter. He further contended that the Tribunal, upon examination of entire evidence on record, rightly awarded just compensation, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010163052020 NC: 2026:KHC:38564 MFA No. 1321 of 2021 and perused the impugned judgment and award and other documents made available before this Court. 8. As could be gathered from records, the accident in question and coverage of insurance policy to the offending vehicle are not in dispute. As far as attributing 50% negligence on the claimant by the Tribunal is concerned, on careful examination of spot mahazar and charge sheet, the offending canter was parked in the left side of National Highway that too without any parking light or indicator. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said canter was parked on the extreme left side of the road, however, spot mahazar depicts that the right side front wheel and rear wheels of the canter were on road. In such circumstance, the driver of the offending canter wrongly parked the vehicle on the National Highway and contributed more negligence for the accident, which is in contravention with Section 122 of the MV Act. No doubt, it is the duty of the claimant to drive his motorcycle carefully by observing the vehicle ahead on the road. Since there was no indicator or parking light on the stationed canter, I am of the considered opinion that the claimant's negligence to - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010163052020 NC: 2026:KHC:38564 MFA No. 1321 of 2021 be taken at 25% instead of 50%. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal is modified by attributing 25% negligence on the part of claimant and 75% towards the driver of the offending canter. 9. As far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal, on an analysis of the medical evidence, has concluded that the claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 20% to the whole body by considering the evidence of PW.2-Doctor and Wound Certificate/Disability Certificate. 10. I have perused the evidence of PW.2-Doctor and the wound certificate/disability certificate. The same depict that the claimant has sustained following injuries: i. Lacerated injury over left temporal parital region of scalp measuring 2 X 2 cm. ii. Compound communited fracture of left humerus iii. Fracture of left tibia 11. Since the Doctor has assessed the disability at 66.92% to the whole body, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 20% to the whole body, which is just and proper. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010163052020 NC: 2026:KHC:38564 MFA No. 1321 of 2021 12. The Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.7,000/-. Since there is no credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2015, would be Rs.9,000/-. Since the claimant has suffered 20% disability and is aged 30 years, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.103807/2016 c/w MFA No.103835/2016 and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SIDRAM stated supra, 40% future prospects requires to be added to the said income, which would be Rs.12,600/- (9,000 + 40%). 13. As the claimant was aged 30 years, a multiplier of '17' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,14,080/- (12,600 x 12 x 17 x 20%) towards 'loss of future income'. 14. The sum awarded as 'medical expenses' at Rs.4,04,000/-, being based on documentary evidence, do not call for modification and hence confirmed. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010163052020 NC: 2026:KHC:38564 MFA No. 1321 of 2021 15. The sums awarded by the Tribunal under other heads remain unaltered. 16. 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 this Court (Rs.) 1. Towards pain and suffering 50,000 2. Towards loss of amenities 30,000 3. Towards loss of future income 5,14,080 4. Towards attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges 17,000 5. Towards loss of income during laid up period and rest period 38,000 6. Towards medical expenses 4,04,000 7. Towards future medical expenses 40,000 Sub - Total 10,93,080 (-) 25% contributory negligence of the claimant 2,73,270 TOTAL 8,19,810 17. The Tribunal has awarded 9% interest for the compensation instead of 6% interest. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.5896/2018 dated 24.08.2020, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is modified - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010163052020 NC: 2026:KHC:38564 MFA No. 1321 of 2021 and the claimant is entitled for the interest at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 9%. 18. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.8,19,810/- as against Rs.4,33,000/-. However, the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 19. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23