- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:979 MFA No. 3039 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3039 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: RAMANAMMA W/O M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NATIVE OF NO.4-44, MAIN ROAD, DUDHARAGUTTA, ANANTHAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH, PRESENTLY R/AT KEERTHI ESTATE NEAR MEDITECH COMPANY, BANDAPURA GATE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST - 560 036. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. SURESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RGIC, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE - 650 001. REPT. BY ITS INCHARGE MANAGER INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG NO.KA-22N-5943 POLICY NO.1415272347001182 VALIDITY 31-03-2017 TO 30-03-2018 2. HIDAYATH ULLA S/O DAYED ISMAIL Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:979 MFA No. 3039 of 2021 MAJOR IN AGE, R/A NO.237, MASTHI, 1ST BLOCK MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. (RC OWNER OF THE TRACTOR VEHICLE) 3. PANI SHANKAR MAJOR IN AGE R/AT NO.E-566/21, VEERABHADRESHWARA LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, THINDLU, BANGALORE NORTH - 560 097 (PRESENT RC OWNER OF THE VEHICLE) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.C. BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.01.2026, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 267/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, 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 DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:979 MFA No. 3039 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri P.Suresh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri. H.C.Betsur, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted, the claimant in MVC No.267/2018 which stood pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru and was disposed of through order dated 28.01.2020 preferred the present appeal. 3. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant are two fold. Firstly, that the tribunal went wrong in attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. Secondly, that the compensation granted is highly inadequate. Arguing on the first aspect, learned counsel states that while the appellant was trying to cross the road at Bandapura gate on Bengaluru-Kolar road, she was hit by a Maruti Swift Car which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner due to which she fell down and sustained injuries. There was no negligence on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:979 MFA No. 3039 of 2021 the part of the appellant. Without there being any material on record to show the alleged negligence on part of the appellant the tribunal attributed contributory negligence to an extent of 25%. Learned counsel submits that the observations made in that regard by the tribunal are devoid of merits. 4. Contradicting the submission thus made on the point of contributory negligence, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 contends that the appellant was crossing the road where there was no provision to cross and thereby she contributed for the accident to occur. Learned counsel submits that had the appellant was vigilant and was following road rules and regulations, the accident might not have occurred. Learned counsel further states that the sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer reveals the exact place of accident and that sketch speaks by itself that the accident occurred while the appellant was crossing the road. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:979 MFA No. 3039 of 2021 5. As per the version of the appellant, on 21.12.2017 at about 07.00 p.m. While she was trying to cross the road at Bandapura gate on Bengaluru-Kolar road by watching the vehicular movements, the driver of a Maruti Swift car bearing registration No.KA-22-N-5943 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her due to which she fell down and sustained injuries. 6. At para 10 of the impugned order the tribunal observed that though the appellant stated that she was standing at the bus stop but she admitted that she had stated in her affidavit that she was trying to cross the road. At para 11 of the order the tribunal held that the fact that the appellant has contributed to the accident is established as she admitted that she was crossing the road. There is lot of difference between the phrases 'trying to cross the road' and 'crossing the road'. what the appellant stated, even as per the observation of the tribunal is that she was trying to cross the road. But the tribunal held that the appellant admitted that she was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:979 MFA No. 3039 of 2021 crossing the road, which in fact is not a statement that was given by her. That apart, no evidence was produced by respondent No. 1 to show the alleged contribution on part of the appellant for the occurrence of accident. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly conceded that there is no averment whatsoever in the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer about the negligence or contribution on part of the appellant for the accident to occur. Thus, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the appellant contributed for the accident to occur and the said contribution is to an extent of 25%. 8. Coming to the quantum of amount that is awarded as compensation, as per the version of the appellant by doing work as house maid she was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Admittedly, no evidence to that effect was produced by the appellant. Arguing on this aspect, learned counsel for the appellant states that the accident occurred in the year 2017 and for the relevant period the Karnataka - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:979 MFA No. 3039 of 2021 State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month for settlement of claims and at least said figure should have been adopted by the tribunal. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 did not raise any serious objection for taking the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month as sought for by learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Thus, the notional income of the appellant is taken as Rs.11,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained fracture shaft of left humerus, soft tissue laceration of left forearm, fracture of left inferior pubic rami, laceration over upper lip, and abrasion over left knee and left foot. Subjecting the evidence of PW-2 to scrutiny, the tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 15% which needs no interference. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained and the disability with which the appellant is left with and as the appellant has to lead her entire life with such disability, this Court is of the view that future prospects are required - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:979 MFA No. 3039 of 2021 to be added. It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged around 35 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 case, 40% of the earnings are added towards future prospects. Thus, on taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.11,000/- per month, on adding 40% towards future prospects, on applying the appropriate multiplier '16' and taking the disability in respect of whole body as 15%, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards loss of future earnings comes to Rs.4,43,520/- (11,000 x 12 + 40% x 16 x 15%). 10. Having considered the fact that the appellant sustained two grievous injuries and other simple injuries, this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken bed rest at least for a period of 4 months. Thus loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.44,000/- (11,000 x 4). Also subjecting the entire evidence to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:979 MFA No. 3039 of 2021 scrutiny, this Court is of the view that the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive under each head is as under:- Heads Amount in Rs. Compensation for pain and suffering 40,000.00 Towards food, extra nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges 15,000.00 Medical expenses 50,262.00 Loss of future earnings 4,43,520.00 Loss of income during laid up period 44,000.00 Loss of amenities in life 10,000.00 Future medical expenses 20,000.00 Total 6,22,782.00 11. Thus, the aforementioned discussion makes it clear that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,22,782/- as compensation. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:- ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. Contributory negligence attributed on part of the appellant by the Motor Accident Claims - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:979 MFA No. 3039 of 2021 Tribunal, Bangalore through orders in MVC No. 267/2018 dated 28.01.2020 is set aside. iii. Compensation that is granted by the tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,28,662/- to Rs.6,22,782/-. iv. Entire compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. v. Respondent No. 1 is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. vi. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43