- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3949 MFA No. 3638 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3638 OF 2021(MV-I) BETWEEN: MALLI @ MALLIKARJUNA S/O. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS COOLIE R/AT 1ST CROSS JOGIMATTI ROAD CHITRADURGA TOWN-577 501 …APPELLANT (BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SACHIN BANSAL S/O. ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OWNER OF TATA LPS PLATFO TRAILOR LORRY BEARING NO.KA-01/AE-8302 R/O. GLOBAL FREIGHT CARRIERS, NH-63 HOSPETE BELLARY MAIN ROAD KUREKUPPA, THORANAGAL R. S. SANDUR TALUK Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3949 MFA No. 3638 of 2021 BELLARY-583 119 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND OPPOSITE TO J.M. TOWERS B. D. ROAD CHITRADURGA-577 501 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUSHREEPRIYA MOHANTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, (ABSENT)), V/O DATED 5/11/25, NOTICE TO R-1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.904/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, ADDITIONAL MACT-3, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD IN ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3949 MFA No. 3638 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT The matter was heard on appellant's side on 13.01.2026. There was no representation on respondent's side on that day. To give fair opportunity to respondent No.2 to represent and make his submission on the merits of the matter, the matter was adjourned. However even on this day there is no representation for respondent No.2. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- III, Chitradurga in MVC No.904/2018 dated 24.10.2019. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. Sri.R.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal is filed on two grounds. Firstly, that the accident occurred entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry which is involved in the accident and therefore, attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant to an extent of 20% is improper. Secondly, that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is on lower side. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3949 MFA No. 3638 of 2021 4. Arguing on first point, learned counsel for the appellant states that the Tribunal, only on the ground that the appellant was not holding driving licence to ride a motorcycle, held that he contributed for the accident to occur, but the said observation is improper. 5. The manner of happening of accident as projected by the appellant before the Tribunal is that on 23.02.2018 at about 3.50 p.m. while he was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-16/L-6109 from Rudrammanahally Village towards Hirehally Village, a TATA LPS Platfo Trailor lorry bearing registration No.KA-01/AE-8302 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed came and dashed against his motorcycle due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. 6. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was carrying a pillion also and the said pillion died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Thus it is clear that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3949 MFA No. 3638 of 2021 appellant who was not holding driving licence was also carrying a pillion on his motorcycle when the accident occurred. By the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, it is also clear that Police laid charge sheet against the appellant also but on the ground he was driving the vehicle without driving licence. At paragraph No.12 of the impugned order the Tribunal observed that Police prosecuted the appellant for having found riding the motorcycle without driving licence and that the appellant paid fine also. 7. Subjecting the evidence of Pw.1, Rw.1 and Ex.P3 - Spot Mahazar to scrutiny, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the appellant was also negligent and he contributed for the accident to occur to some extent. The Tribunal fixed his contribution to an extent of 20%. However, as the contesting respondent failed to produce any proof to show that the contribution of the appellant is to an extent of 20%, as he was prosecuted only for driving the vehicle without driving licence and as it is found that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3949 MFA No. 3638 of 2021 he was found driving the vehicle along with a pillion though he does not possess driving licence and issuance of driving licence is done only on satisfaction of the condition that the particular person who applies for driving licence is found eligible to drive particular type of vehicle on road which is required for the safety of the said person as well as safety of others, this Court is of the view that contributory negligence on the part of the appellant can be attributed to an extent of 10%. 8. Coming to quantum of compensation that is awarded, as per the version of the appellant as coolie he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/- per month. The submission that was made by learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is that the accident occurred in the year 2018 and for the relevant period even the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.12,500/- per month and at least said figure should have been adopted by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3949 MFA No. 3638 of 2021 Tribunal. Having considered the submission thus made, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.12,500/- per month. The Tribunal rightly assessed the disability in respect of whole body as 10%. Thus without disturbing other parameters i.e., disability in respect of whole body as 10% and multiplier to be applied as 18, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards loss of future earnings comes to Rs.2,70,000/- (Rs.12,500 X 12 X 18 X 10%). The Tribunal through the impugned order held that the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive under the head loss of future earnings is Rs.1,72,800/- only. Thus the additional sum which the appellant is entitled to receive is Rs.97,200/- (Rs.2,70,000 - Rs.1,72,800). 9. As rightly contented by learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards the loss which the appellant would have sustained due to failure on his part to attend work while taking - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3949 MFA No. 3638 of 2021 treatment until recovery. Undisputedly the appellant sustained fracture of right femur. It is also borne by record that the appellant underwent operation under spinal anaesthesia. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken bed rest at least for a period of 3 months. Thus loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500 X 3). The compensation granted by the Tribunal under all other heads is justifiable. Therefore, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.1,34,700/- (Rs.97,200 + Rs.37,500). 10. Thus the aforementioned discussion makes it clear that respondents are liable to pay 90% of Rs.2,68,310/- that is awarded by the Tribunal and 90% of Rs.1,34,700/- which is awarded by this Court in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3949 MFA No. 3638 of 2021 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Contributory negligence on the part of the appellant for the accident to occur is fixed as 10%. (iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the appellant 90% of Rs.2,68,310/- as fixed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Chitradurga through orders in MVC No.904/2018 dated 24.10.2019 and also 90% of the enhanced sum i.e., Rs1,34,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount which he is liable to pay within 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (v) On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS/CT:VC, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15