- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15006 MFA No. 314 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SHAFI AHMED S/O. ABDUL JABBAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS DRIVER AND OWNER OF AUTO R/O. BELT ROAD SHANKARAPURA 4TH CROSS CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHIVASHANKAR S.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHANNAKESHAVA. R S/O. RAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS KSRTC BUS DRIVER MUDIGERE DEPOT - 577 102 DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING NO. KA-18-F-717 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, CHIKKAMAGALUR DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 102 …RESPONDENTS (R-1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15006 MFA No. 314 of 2018 THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1908 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MVC NO.141/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & C.J.M., & M.A.C.T. AT CHIKKAMAGALURU DATED 13/10/2017 BY MODIFYING THE AWARD BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: (CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the injured/appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 13.10.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.141/2015 by Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and M.A.C.T., Chikkamagaluru, (for short, 'Tribunal'). 2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Sri Shiva Shankar S.K., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in recording the finding that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15006 MFA No. 314 of 2018 injured/appellant has contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% which is only based on the photographs produced by the respondents. He submitted that the police after investigation, filed charge sheet against the driver of the Corporation-Bus and no evidence was placed by the respondents-Corporation to prove the contributory negligence. Hence, saddling any liability/negligence on the part of the injured would be contrary to the evidence on record. Hence, he seeks to fix the entire liability on the Corporation. He submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the income, disability of the injured and awarded meagre compensation under all the Heads. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, Smt. H.R.Renuka, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has recorded clear finding based on Ex.R.2, the photographs placed by the Corporation and panchanama at Ex.P4 and came to the conclusion that the driver of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15006 MFA No. 314 of 2018 auto-rickshaw that is, appellant/injured came in the wrong direction and caused the accident. Hence. the contributory negligence of 50% is saddled on him. The same does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the Tribunal taking note of the nature of injuries suffered, treatment provided, awarded compensation to the claimant on all Heads which are higher side. The same does not call for any enhancement. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?" - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15006 MFA No. 314 of 2018 7. The above point is answered in the 'affirmative' for the following reason: The material on record indicates that on 24.12.2014, the appellant himself was driving the auto rickshaw and proceeding towards the Mudigere from Chikkamagaluru. At the time, he met with a road accident. It is averred that the bus driver of Corporation was negligent and caused the accident. 8. It is admitted fact that the jurisdictional police after investigation in Crime No.260/2014, filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus for the negligent act. 9. The Tribunal considering the said aspect and recorded the finding that the appellant as well as the driver of the bus have contributed to the accident equally and saddled the liability accordingly. It is to be noticed that Ex.P4 is copy of the panchanama and Ex.R2 are the photographs on record which indicate that the auto rickshaw was proceeding from Chikkamagalur to Mudigere and the bus was coming from opposite direction i.e. from - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15006 MFA No. 314 of 2018 Mudigere to Chikkamagalur. The records also indicate that the road runs north to south and the accident spot is shown towards eastern portion of the road, on which side the bus was coming. Considering the said aspect, the Tribunal recorded the finding that the appellant has contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%. 10. On re-examining the oral evidence of PW-1, RW-1, Ex.R2 and Ex.P4 and the charge sheet material, I am of the considered view that the contributory negligence is required to be modified by considering the evidence available on record and also keeping in mind that the police has filed charge sheet only against the driver of the bus. 11. Considering these aspects, the contributory negligence is modified by holding that the appellant/ injured has contributed to the accident to the extent of 35% and the bus driver of respondent No.2-Corporation has contributed to the extent of 65%. To the aforesaid - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15006 MFA No. 314 of 2018 extent, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified. 12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the income of the injured at Rs.10,000/- per month, assessed the disability at 18%. The detailed finding of the Tribunal can be noticed from para 13 to para 15 of the judgment. 13. The perusal of the injuries suffered, surgery undergone by the appellant, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fully justified in assessing the disability at 18%. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record with regard to the income of the injured/appellant. The Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.10,000/- per month, which does not call for any modification. It is also to be noticed that the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation on all other Heads and award of compensation by the Tribunal is just and fair and does not call for any enhancement. Hence, I pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15006 MFA No. 314 of 2018 ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.141/2015 is modified by holding that respondent No.2-Corporation is liable to make good of the 65% of the total compensation (i.e `4,96,000/-) awarded by the Tribunal to the aforesaid extent. c) The difference of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. d) Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15006 MFA No. 314 of 2018 e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered. f) Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. g) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1