- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9690 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: C.S. MAHADEVA, S/O SIDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT PUNAJANURU, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 303. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, CHAMARAJANAGAR DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 303. 2. R.GEETHA, W/O RAVI, NO.12/17, THYAGARAJA ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN - 571 303. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., INFRONT OF FIRE BRIGADE, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. RENUKA H R., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. D.C. DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. K. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.166/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR, PARTLY 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 T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement as well as the contributory negligence fastened on him at the rate of 10%, arising out of Judgment and award dated 07.11.2016 in M.V.C.No.166/2015 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, M.A.C.T, Chamarajanagar (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 3. In an accident occurred 15.03.2015, the claimant sustained injuries as stated by the doctor in his evidence as under: "He was brought in comatose state with severe head injury. He also has bilateral ear bleed, injury in face and repeated vomiting. He was brought from J.S.S Hospital as they could not afford financially. C.T Head on 15-03-2015 showed hemorrhagic contusion in Right Parieto temporal lobe. there is mass effect in the form of obliteration of basal cisterns with midline shift of 3.mm. Contusion in occipital lobe, SAH with few air pocket's (#) Fracture of right temporal bone. Fracture hemomastial soft tissue opacification in external auditory canal and various other injuries in skull noted." The claimant was an in-patient for 25 days but received conservative treatment. As per the claimant, he has incurred sum of Rs.6,878/- towards medical expenses. 4. As per the doctor, the claimant suffered 25% disability to the whole body. The Tribunal considering the fact that the disability is suffered to the brain, treated it as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 whole body disability and awarded compensation of Rs.2,95,900/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Five Thousand and Nine Hundred only) fastening 10% contributory negligence on the claimant, 10% on the Car parked on the wrong side of the road and 80% on the driver of the Bus. Calling in question the contributory negligence fixed at 10% on the claimant and seeking enhancement of compensation, this appeal is filed. 5. Heard, Sri.Sanath Kumara.K.M., learned counsel for the appellant, Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Corporation, Sri.D.C.Deepak., learned counsel for respondent No.2 - owner of the Car involved in the accident and Sri.K.Suresh., learned counsel for respondent No.3 - Insurer of the Car. 6. Sri.Sanath Kumara.K.M., with all vehemence submits that the spot mahazar as well as the complaint clearly shows that it is the driver of the bus who was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 responsible for the accident so also the driver of the car for wrong parking the car which has caused the clog in moving the traffic. As such, both the drivers of the car as well as the bus are responsible for the accident. The Tribunal without considering this aspect of the matter, fastened the liability of 10% on the claimant without there being any fault attributable to him. So far as enhancement is concerned, learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded when compared to injuries suffered are sparse. The accident had occurred in the year 2015 and as per the Chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority for settlement of cases before the Lok- Adalat, the income for the year 2015 is fixed at Rs.9,000/. However, the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.6,000/- and considering the age as 55 years had applied multiplier of 11. He submits that the income as fixed under the chart must be taken into consideration and the compensation awarded except Medical Expenses must be enhanced considering the injuries sustained by the claimant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 7. Both the Insurer of the Care as well as the Corporation opposed the enhancement. So far as the liability is concerned, Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that the Corporation has examined its driver and two witnesses to substantiate their claim that it is the car which is parked on the wrong side, caused clogging of traffic and the pedestrian who moved abruptly in the running traffic is responsible for the accident. The Tribunal though considered this aspect of the matter, but fastened the liability only to the extent of 10% on the pedestrian and 10% on the car. Though the Corporation is not in appeal, considering the material placed by the claimant as well as the Corporation, the percentage of liability on both driver of the Car as well as the pedestrian may be enhanced at least to the extent of 20% each. So far as compensation is concerned, Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that the Tribunal having considered the entire material on record, appropriately awarded compensation by taking the income at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month in the absence of any - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 proof of income. With this, counsel submits that liability fastened on the Corporation be reduced to the extent of 60% and fasten the liability of 20% each on the claimant and the driver of the offending car and accordingly modify the judgment. 8. Per contra, Sri.K.Suresh., learned Counsel appearing for the insurer of the Car, submits that though the car was parked on the wrong side, but it was stationed for the purpose of filling up of air in the tyre and the bus which came in rash and negligent manner in a busy road, caused the accident. In these circumstances, the driver of the bus should be held liable for the entire accident and the percentage of liability fastened on owner of the Car be set aside. The entire liability should be fastened on the driver of the Corporation and sought to modify the award. So far as compensation is concerned, he argued in line with Smt.H.R.Renuka. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 9. Having heard the submissions, the following questions would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the Claimant has made out a case to interfere with the liability of contributory negligence fastened on him? 2) Whether the Claimant has made out a case for enhancement? 10. My answer to the above points for consideration are as under: Point No.1 : In the Affirmative. Point No.2 : Partly in affirmative, for the following: REASONS 11. POINT NO.1: A perusal of the evidence of respondent No.1 - Driver of the bus clearly shows that the driver of the vehicle is responsible for the accident. The way in which the evidence has been led does not inspire confidence to accept the averments stated in the evidence. The driver of the bus has stated in his evidence as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 “¢£ÁAPÀ 15-3-2015 gÀAzÀÄ PÉJ¸Ágïn¹ §¸ï ¸ÀASÉå PÉJ- 10:J¥sï 0131 gÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀð ¸ÀASÉå 21 PÉÌ ZÁ®PÀ£ÁV ¤AiÀÄÄQÛUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ ZÁªÀÄgÁd£ÀUÀgÀ¢AzÀ ªÉÄʸÀÆjUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä §¸ï ¤¯ÁÝtªÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 11-40 gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ZÁªÀÄgÁd£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÀZÀÑ¥Àà ªÀÈvÀÛzÀ §½ ¹UÀ߯ï EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV §¸Àì£ÀÄß ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀZÀÑ¥Àà ªÀÈvÀÛ¢AzÀ rëAiÉÄõÀ£ï gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ ¸ÀAvÉêÀÄgÀ½î ¸ÀPÀð¯ïªÀgÉ«UÀÆ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄÄ CvÀåAvÀ d£À¸ÀAzÀt ºÁUÀÆ zÀlÖ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ NqÁqÀĪÀAvÀºÀ KPÀªÀÄÄR ¸ÀAZÁgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, F PÁgÀt¢AzÀ ¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÁUÀgÀÆPÀ£ÁV §¸Àì£ÀÄß ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀZÀÑ¥Àà ªÀÈvÀÛ¢AzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 200 «ÄÃ. ªÀÄÄAzÉ §AzÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è PÁgÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÀt ¸ÀASÉå PÉJ-03:JAPÉ 5066 ¤AwzÀÄÝ, ¥ÁzÀZÁj M§â£ÀÄ PÁj£À ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ vÀPÀët gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ CqÀدÁV ªÀÄÄAzÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ, D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÁzÀZÁjAiÀÄÄ £Á£ÀÄ ZÁ®£ÉªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÉJ¸ïDgïn¹ §¸ï §gÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ £ÉÆÃr vÀPÀët UÁ¨sÀj¬ÄAzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀå¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ »AzÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV vÁ£Éà ¸ÀévÀ: gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ¤AwzÀÝAvÀºÀ PÁj£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©¢ÝgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ PÁj£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÀÄÝ gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ ©zÀÝ ¥ÀjuÁªÀĪÁV DvÀ¤UÉ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. vÀPÀët DvÀ£ÀߣÀÄ D ¸ÀܼÀ¢AzÀ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr £Á£ÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß w½¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.” 12. In the accident, as per the medical records, the claimant has suffered fracture of the skull and severe - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 damage to the brain resulting in 25% disability. If the evidence of the driver of the bus is considered as it is, the accident of such severity in all probability may not arise. This clearly shows that it is the driver of the bus is responsible for the accident. There is no effective cross- examination of PW.1 by the corporation to deny the accident. The severity of impact could be assessed by the injuries suffered on the skull. In these circumstances, the Tribunal in the absence of any contra evidence placed even on preponderance of probabilities, erred in holding that the pedestrian had contributed 10% negligence to the accident. 13. One more reason this Court finds is, the road is a busy road. The way in which the accident occurred and the injuries suffered clearly show the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In these circumstances, the liability fastened on the pedestrian to the extent of 10% requires to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 14. POINT NO.2: So far as the enhancement of compensation is concerned, the CT scan report clearly reveals that all the cranial bones were fractured, resulting in severe damage to the brain to the extent of 25%. Considering this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has awarded compensation. However, except the compensation under the heads of Medical Expenses and Pain and Suffering, all other heads seems to be on downside. The income taken at the rate of Rs.6,000/- is against the income fixed under the Chart stated supra. The accident is of the year 2015. In these circumstances, the income must be considered at Rs.9,000/- per month. The Tribunal has failed to consider the case of the claimant to award any compensation under the head of Loss of Amenities. Accordingly, the claimant is also entitled for compensation under the head "Loss of Amenities" in a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Considering the higher income and on re- appreciation, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 requires reconsideration. Accordingly, on reassessment, the Claimant is entitled for the following compensation: Sl.No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Amount in Rs. Re-assessed compensation by this Court Amount in Rs. 1. Towards injury, pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 2. Towards medical expenses Rs.6,900/- Rs.6,900/- 3. Towards food, extra nourishment and medical attendant Rs.3,000/- Rs.8,000/- 4. Towards Conveyance Rs.2,000/- Rs.5,000/- 5. Towards loss of income during treatment (9,000 X 5 months) Rs.36,000/- Rs.45,000/- 6. Towards disability and loss of future earning (9,000 X 12 X 11 X 25%) Rs.1,98,000/- Rs.2,97,000/- 7. Towards loss of amenities - Rs.40,000/- TOTAL Rs.2,95,900/- Rs.4,51,900/- Re-assessed Compensation Rs.4,51,900/- 15. Both the Corporation as well as respondent No.3 - Insurer of the Car are liable to pay the re- determined compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, proportionately as per the liability fastened after deducting the amount that has already been deposited. Both the Corporation as well as respondent - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 No.3- Insurer are liable to pay compensation at the rate of 90% and 10% respectively. 16. Accordingly this Court has to pass a following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The contributory negligence of 10% fastened on the claimant - appellant is hereby set-aside. The driver of the Corporation is liable to pay compensation at the rate of 90% and the Insurer is liable to pay compensation at the rate of 10%. Accordingly, the Judgment and Award dated 07.11.2016 in M.V.C.No.166/2015 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, MACT, Chamarajanagar is modified. (iii) The Corporation - first respondent and the Insurer - third respondent shall pay their percentage of liability on re-determined compensation deducting the amount that - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9268 MFA No. 9690 of 2017 has already been deposited before the Tribunal, along with interest stated supra from the date of petition till realization except 285 days delay as per the order dated 15.07.2022, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv) The Tribunal upon deposit, shall release the entire amount in favour of the claimant after due identification. (v) The trial Court record shall be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal without causing any delay. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 ct-vn