- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531132022 NC: 2026:KHC:40271 MFA No. 7786 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7786 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: VINOD KUMAR S., S/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.106, NEW STREET, KUMBARKOPPALU, MYSORE, PIN - 570 002 NOW R/AT : C/O RAMEGOWDA, ARAKERE VILLAGE, S.R.PATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NIDHIN SANKAR, S/O. SANKARAN M., AGE : MAJOR, R/AT PRAYAG, PERINGODE, PARASSERI POST, KOGAD, PALAKKAD, KERALA - 678 637. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531132022 NC: 2026:KHC:40271 MFA No. 7786 of 2022 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ADHICHUNCHANAGIRI ROAD, NEAR RMP QUARTERS, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSORE - 570 023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JOHN PAUL, A., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI.ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.09.2021, PASSED IN MVC NO.872/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT Being dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed in MVC No.872/2019 dated 24.09.2021 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT Srirangapatna, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), claimant is before this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 11.04.2019 at about 11:30 p.m., the claimant was travelling as a pillion - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531132022 NC: 2026:KHC:40271 MFA No. 7786 of 2022 rider on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-12-R-5243, which was being ridden by one Vishwas. When they reached K.R.S. Y- Junction, near the CFTRI North Gate, Mysuru City, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-09-AN-109, ridden in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the motorcycle on which the claimant was travelling. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to the hospital, where he underwent treatment. Thereafter, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. 3. Upon assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.3,22,899/- along with 6% interest per annum. 4. The Tribunal further held that the rider of the motorcycle on which the claimant was travelling had also contributed negligence to the occurrence of the accident to the extent of 30% and, accordingly, attributed 30% contributory negligence to him. On that basis, the Tribunal deducted 30% of the compensation payable to the claimant. The Tribunal further - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531132022 NC: 2026:KHC:40271 MFA No. 7786 of 2022 held that the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-09-AN- 109 was negligent to the extent of 70% and, consequently, directed the Insurance Company to satisfy 70% of the compensation awarded, while reserving liberty to recover the 30% out of the same from respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimant is before this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant so also the learned counsel for respondents. 6. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the Tribunal erred in deducting 30% of the compensation on the ground that the rider of the motorcycle on which the appellant was travelling had contributed 30% negligence to the accident. The said finding of the Tribunal is unsustainable both on facts and in law in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others". reported in (2015) 3 ACJ 1441. Placing reliance on the said decision, it is contended that in cases of composite negligence, once the negligence of the joint tortfeasors is - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531132022 NC: 2026:KHC:40271 MFA No. 7786 of 2022 determined, the claimant is entitled to recover the entire compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors, leaving it open to such tortfeasor to recover the appropriate share from the other tortfeasor in accordance with law. The learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation under various heads without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, particularly the evidence of the claimant -PW.1 and the doctor- PW.2. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal was justified in deducting 30% of the compensation awarded to the claimant-appellant, as the rider of the motorcycle in which the appellant was travelling was not arrayed as a party to the proceedings. In such circumstances, the Tribunal had no other option but to deduct 30% of the compensation payable to the appellant. He further contended that the Tribunal was not justified in saddling only 30% negligence to the rider of the motorcycle in which the appellant was travelling. According to the learned counsel, the investigation records reveal that the rider had equally - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531132022 NC: 2026:KHC:40271 MFA No. 7786 of 2022 contributed negligence to the occurrence of the accident. He also submitted that the Tribunal had rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation under all the relevant heads. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No1, the owner of the offending motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-09-AN- 109, submitted that he had been placed ex-parte before the Tribunal and was not afforded an opportunity to put forth his case. He therefore contended that the impugned judgment and award are liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 9. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions and the perused materials available on record. 10. As could be gathered from records, the accident in question and coverage of insurance policy to the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-09-AN-109 are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute, at the time of the accident, the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 12-R-5243. Upon appreciation of the investigation records, - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531132022 NC: 2026:KHC:40271 MFA No. 7786 of 2022 namely Exs.P1 to P6, including the FIR, spot mahazar, and the final report/charge sheet, the Tribunal held that the rider of the motorcycle on which the appellant was travelling had also contributed to the occurrence of the accident. The Tribunal observed that the accident occurred at the KRS Y-Junction and that the rider of the motorcycle in which the appellant was travelling had failed to exercise due care and caution to avoid the accident. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Exs.P1 to P6, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in attributing 30% contributory negligence to the rider of the said motorcycle. However, it is pertinent to note that the claimant had not arrayed the rider of the motorcycle as a party to the proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Khenyei stated supra in paragraph Nos.22.3 to 22.5 held as under: "22.1. In the case of composite negligence, the plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. 22.2. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tortfeasors vis-à- vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. 22.3. In case all the joint tortfeasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531132022 NC: 2026:KHC:40271 MFA No. 7786 of 2022 court/Tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of the payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/Tribunal, in the main case one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. 22.4. It would not be appropriate for the court/Tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tortfeasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tortfeasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tortfeasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award." 11. On collocating the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment with the facts of the present case, I am of the considered view that the said judgment squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. The instant case is also one, involving composite negligence, wherein the Tribunal has apportioned the liability at 30% and 70% between the joint tortfeasors. However, it is well settled that in cases of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to recover the entire compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors. In the instant case, although the appellant has not arrayed the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-12-R- 5243 as a party to the proceedings, the claim petition is - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531132022 NC: 2026:KHC:40271 MFA No. 7786 of 2022 nevertheless maintainable, and the claimant is entitled to recover the entire compensation from respondent No.2, the insurer of the offending motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-9-AN- 109. Further, the claimant was only a pillion rider, and therefore, no negligence can be attributed to him. In such circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal deducting 30% of the compensation payable to the claimant on the ground of contributory negligence is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, respondent No.2–Insurance Company shall satisfy the entire award in favour of the claimant. However, respondent No.2 is at liberty to recover the 30% award amount from the owner of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-12-R-5243. 12. Insofar as the Tribunal's apportionment of liability between the tortfeasors is concerned, respondent No.2 shall bear 40% and respondent No.1 shall bear 30% out of the 70% liability, is left undisturbed. Nevertheless, respondent No.2 shall first satisfy the entire 70% liability payable under the award and shall thereafter be at liberty to recover the corresponding 30% share from respondent No.1 in accordance with law. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531132022 NC: 2026:KHC:40271 MFA No. 7786 of 2022 13. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the disability at 7% to the whole body based on the evidence of PW.2– Doctor. The same does not call for any interference. Since the accident occurred in the year 2019, in the absence of any documentary evidence to establish the income of the appellant- claimant, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the notional monthly income at Rs.14,000/- per month, as per the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 14. As the claimant was aged 22 years, a multiplier of '18' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,11,680/- (Rs.14,000 x 12 x 18 x 7%) towards 'loss of future income'. 15. As a consequence, the amount of Rs.14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' would also stand enhanced to Rs.42,000/- (Rs.14,000 X 3). - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531132022 NC: 2026:KHC:40271 MFA No. 7786 of 2022 16. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. Having regard to the lasting effects of the injuries on the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities, as against the sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The sum awarded as medical expenses at Rs.44,219/-, being based on documentary evidence, do not call for modification and hence confirmed. 19. The sums awarded under other heads of compensation granted by the Tribunal, remains unaltered. 20. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531132022 NC: 2026:KHC:40271 MFA No. 7786 of 2022 Sl. No. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Pain and sufferings 40,000 50,000 2. Medical expenses 44,219 44,219 3. Food, diet, Nourishment, conveyance and other incidental charges 3,000 3,000 4. Loss of income during treatment period 14,000 42,000 5. Loss of income towards permanent disability 2,11680 2,11,680 6. Disappointment and discomfort and loss of amenities 20,000 30,000 Sub Total 3,32,899 - Less contributory negligence 99,870 - Total 2,33,029 3,80,899 21. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.3,80,899/- as against Rs.2,33,029/-, - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531132022 NC: 2026:KHC:40271 MFA No. 7786 of 2022 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the enhanced compensation. 22. 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. 23. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to make good the entire payment to the claimant, however, is at liberty to recover 30% of the amount from the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-12-R-5243 and 30% from respondent No.1-the owner of the offending vehicle. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17