- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21509 M.F.A. No.4238/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4238/2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. PRASHANTH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O RAJU R/O 8/449/A JLB ROAD, VADERA HOBALI HAVALIMANE VITTALVADI KUNDAPURA KASBA VILLAGE AND POST KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 576201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.M. ANFAL, ADV., FOR SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.,) AND: 1. GANESH DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O NARAYANA DEVADIGA KURUVEELAJJANAMANE NAIKANAKATTE, KERGAL VILLAGE AND POST KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 576201. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD KUNDAPURA BRANCH SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA COMPLEX OPP KSRTC N H 66, VODERHOBLI KUNDAPURA BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21509 M.F.A. No.4238/2020 3. SRI. ARUNA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O LINGA R/O NEAR SANTHE MARKET KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. 4. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA BRANCH 2ND FLOOR, SAI CENTRE MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST, UDUPI DISTRICT 576201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADV., FOR R2 SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV., FOR R4 R1 & R3 SERVICE OF NOTICE D/W V/C/O DTD:17.07.2023) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 849/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21509 M.F.A. No.4238/2020 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the injured appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 13.12.2018 passed in MVC.No.849/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Kundapura (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Sri.S.M.Anfal, learned counsel for Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in recording a finding that the injured appellant was negligent and had contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% by ignoring the fact that the charge sheet has been filed against the rider of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that the Tribunal, based on spot sketch, has erroneously concluded that the injured appellant was also negligent by ignoring the fact that the injured appellant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21509 M.F.A. No.4238/2020 was proceeding from Byndoor towards Kundapura on the National Highway, while the deceased, who was riding the offending vehicle from the opposite direction i.e. from Kundapura to Byndoor, drove in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly took a right turn at the accident spot, thereby resulted in the accident and absolutely there was no negligence on the part of the injured appellant. It is further submitted that the Tribunal cannot record such a finding solely on the basis of the spot sketch. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision in Jiju Kuruvila and Others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and Others1. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the appellant and has awarded meager compensation under other heads. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Sri.Ravish Benni, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal with regard to the finding on 1 Civil Appeal Nos.4945-4946/2013 dated 02.07.2013 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21509 M.F.A. No.4238/2020 contributory negligence and submits that the Tribunal has meticulously appreciated the evidence on record, particularly the spot sketch at Ex.P2 and has recorded a clear finding that the accident occurred in the middle of the road, thereby rightly attributed 50% negligence to the injured appellant, which does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable, and there is no scope for enhancement. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. Sri.Ashoka N. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that insofar as respondent No.4 is concerned, it has indemnified the offending vehicle and the award has already been satisfied. It is submitted that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence is based on the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is further submitted that the injured appellant has not produced any - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21509 M.F.A. No.4238/2020 independent evidence to rebut the same. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 6. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 7. The appellant as well as the contesting Insurance Company are not in dispute that the appellant met with a road accident on 16.02.2015. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has recorded a finding that the injured appellant was negligent and contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%, and accordingly liability was saddled. It is to be noticed that the appellant was proceeding on a motorcycle from Byndoor towards Kundapura on National Highway No.66, while the deceased was travelling in the opposite direction i.e., from Kundapura to Byndoor, on his motorcycle. The connected claim petition in MVC.No.928/2015 was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased. Ex.P2, the spot sketch indicates that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21509 M.F.A. No.4238/2020 accident occurred in the middle of the national highway. Further, the FIR at Ex.P1 indicates that the accident was caused due to the negligence of both the riders. However, the charge sheet at Ex.P13 indicates that the jurisdictional police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet against the deceased. It is also to be noticed that neither the claimants in the connected claim petition nor the appellant herein examined any independent witness with regard to the aspect of negligence. From Ex.P2, the width of the National Highway and the point of the accident, being the middle of the road are evident. The charge sheet material indicates that the deceased, while proceeding from Kundapura towards Byndoor, took a right turn at the spot of the accident without any indication. At that point, the appellant/claimant, who was travelling from the opposite direction, collided with the motorcycle ridden by the deceased, resulting in the accident in which the rider of the offending motorcycle succumbed to the injuries and the appellant herein sustained grievous injuries. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21509 M.F.A. No.4238/2020 8. Having regard to the charge sheet material, the averments in the complaint at Ex.P8 and column No.17 of the charge sheet, it can fairly be concluded that both riders were negligent, particularly in riding at a high speed and that both were on the middle of the road. However, it is an admitted and material fact borne out by the charge sheet that the deceased suddenly took a right turn without giving any indication. Considering the said aspect that the deceased without showing any indicator took the right turn suddenly in the middle of the road resulted in the appellant, who was coming on the middle of the road dashed to the deceased's motorcycle contributing to the occurrence of the accident. In view of these circumstances and taking the speed, intensity of the collision, reason for collision of the two vehicles, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by modifying the finding on contributory negligence. Accordingly, the negligence is apportioned at 40% on the appellant and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21509 M.F.A. No.4238/2020 60% on the deceased. Consequently, the liability of the Insurance Company is also modified to the extent of 60%. 9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties except with regard to the income of the appellant. The appellant made an attempt to prove the income by examining PW2 and PW4 and by producing a salary certificate. However, no corroborative evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the claim that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month under PW4. The appellant fails to produce any passbook entries or income tax returns and in the absence of any such corroborative evidence, the testimony of PW4 and the salary certificate cannot be relied upon. Accordingly, the income of the appellant is notionally assessed at Rs.9,000/- per month by placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA. The Tribunal has also committed an error in relying on Ex.P34 to determine the age of the injured appellant, as the said document pertains to the driving licence of the deceased. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21509 M.F.A. No.4238/2020 Considering Ex.P10, the age of the injured appellant is taken as 27 years. Hence, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 17. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 25%. Having reassessed the contributory negligence and income of the appellant, the appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability as under: 9,000/- x 12 x 17 x 25% = Rs.4,59,000/- 10. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the heads of pain and suffering, medical expenses, Future medical expenses, loss of amenities and food, nourishment, attendant charges & conveyance remains unaltered. However, taking note of the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is required to be reassessed by appropriately - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21509 M.F.A. No.4238/2020 enhancing the same. The appellant is entitled to the modified compensation as under: Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to 60% of the total compensation of Rs.6,12,738/- (10,21,230 - 4,08,492) as against Rs.4,67,115/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal stands allowed in part. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Pain & suffering 50,000 Loss of amenities 50,000 Medical expenses 3,51,230 Loss of income during laid-up period (Rs.9,000 X 4) 36,000 Loss of future income due to disability 4,59,000 Towards conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment 40,000 Future medical expenses 35,000 Total 10,21,230 Less 40% contributory negligence 4,08,492 Total compensation 6,12,738 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21509 M.F.A. No.4238/2020 b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,12,738/- as against Rs.4,67,115/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment excluding the interest for the delayed period of 358 days as per the order dated 11.07.2024. d) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21509 M.F.A. No.4238/2020 e) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the entire enhanced compensation amount in favour of the appellant. f) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. g) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14