Karnataka High Court
Shrinivas S/O Mallappa Lendi vs Rayappa S/O Laxman Malagoud on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279
MFA No. 104424 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104424 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRINIVAS S/O. MALLAPPA LENDI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NAVALAGI-587311,
TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAYAPPA S/O. LAXMAN MALAGOUD,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YALLATTI-587311,
TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, GOLGUMBAZ STATION ROAD,
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI VIJAYAPUR, AT: VIJAYAPUR-586101,
Digitally signed by
TQ: AND DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENTS
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
(BY SRI. MADHUKESHWAR A. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD AND FURTHER TO AWARD THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BY MODIFYING
THE SAME, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AND XIII MOTOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279
MFA No. 104424 of 2023
HC-KAR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BANAHATTI IN MVC
NO.231/2021 DATED 13.02.2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri.Vijaykumar B.Horatti, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Madhukeshwar A.Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XIII, Banahatti (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity) in M.V.C. No.231/2021 dated 13.02.2023. This is a claimant's appeal.
3. Sri.Vijaykumar B.Horatti, learned counsel for the appellant opening his submission states that the appeal is filed on two grounds. Firstly, attribution of contributory negligence on part of the appellant by the Tribunal is bad in -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279 MFA No. 104424 of 2023 HC-KAR law. Secondly, the amount that is awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is grossly low.
4. Arguing on the first ground, learned counsel for the appellant states that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on part of the driver of the cruiser vehicle which is involved in the accident. After due investigation, Police laid charge sheet against the driver of the cruiser vehicle making due mention that due to his negligence alone, the accident occurred. But the Tribunal attributed contributory negligence to an extent of 35% upon the appellant. Learned counsel states that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the cruiser vehicle alone and therefore, the respondents have to be held liable to pay entire compensation to the appellant.
5. On the other hand, Sri.Madhukeshwar A.Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that charge sheet is filed by the Police both against the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279 MFA No. 104424 of 2023 HC-KAR driver of the cruiser vehicle and against the appellant herein as well.
6. Contradicting the submission thus made, learned counsel for the appellant states that the driver of the cruiser vehicle is figured as accused No.1 and the appellant is figured as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. The appellant was charge sheeted only on the ground that he was not holding driving licence to drive the motorbike over which he was proceeding at the relevant time. Learned counsel submits that there are no averments in the charge sheet which reveal that the appellant was either rash or negligent while driving his motorbike at the relevant time. Submitting that in the absence of any proof with regard to either rashness or negligence and where the person was not holding driving licence, non-holding of driving licence alone cannot be taken into consideration to attribute contributory negligence, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Dinesh Kumar J. and National Insurance Company Limited -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279 MFA No. 104424 of 2023 HC-KAR and Others1 wherein their Lordships at para 7 and 8 of the judgment observed as follows:
"We are in agreement with the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant that plea of contributory negligence was accepted purely on the basis of conjecture and without any evidence. Once the finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is held to be without any basis, the second aspect which weighed both with the Tribunal and the High Court, that the appellant had not produced the driving licence, would be of no relevance. This aspect has been considered in a judgment of this Court in Sudhir Kumar where it was held as follows : (SCC p.439, paras 9-10) "9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only 1 (2018) 1 SCC 750 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279 MFA No. 104424 of 2023 HC-KAR because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.
10. The matter might have been different if by reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place."
8. In view of the above position, we are of the view that the deduction of forty per cent which was made on the ground of contributory negligence is without any basis."
7. There is no denial of the fact that the appellant was figured as accused only on the ground that he was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to ride motorcycle at the time of accident. Hence, basing on the aforementioned decision, this Court is of the view that contributory negligence attributed by the Tribunal on part of the appellant is liable to be set aside.
8. Coming to quantum, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained two grievous injuries due to the accident and as per the evidence of PW-2, he suffers with permanent disability in respect of -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279 MFA No. 104424 of 2023 HC-KAR whole body to an extent of 40%. But, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 13% only. Learned counsel also states that as an Agriculturist, the appellant was earning Rs.30,000/- per month as on the date of accident. But, the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month only. Learned counsel also states that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal under all heads is on lower side and therefore, by allowing the appeal, the appellant may be granted compensation which he sought for.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the appellant failed to produce any proof with regard to his occupation and earnings as on the date of accident. The accident occurred in the year 2021 and for the relevant period the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad is taking the notional income as Rs.14,250/- per month only. But, without any basis, the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned counsel thereby seeks to pass necessary orders. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279 MFA No. 104424 of 2023 HC-KAR
10. Admittedly, the appellant failed to produce any proof with regard to his occupation and earnings as on the date of accident. Therefore, considering the submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.14,250/- per month.
11. So far as the assessment of disability is concerned, as the assessment made by the Tribunal is on sound reasoning, this Court is of the view that the disability as assessed by the Tribunal that is 13% is required to be retained.
12. The Tribunal rightly observed that the appellant was aged around 24 years by the date of accident. Thus, the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2 case is '18'. However, the Tribunal applied multiplier as '11'. Thus, 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279 MFA No. 104424 of 2023 HC-KAR taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.14,250/- per month, the disability in respect of whole body as 13% and applying the appropriate multiplier '18', the compensation which the appellant is entitled towards loss of future earnings is Rs.4,00,140/- (Rs.14,250 x 12 x 18 x 13%).
13. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained closed segmental fracture of tibia right and acromio clavicular joint dislocation of left shoulder. Further, it is not in dispute that those two injuries are grievous in nature. The appellant also succeeded in establishing that he underwent surgery during the course of treatment. Having considered these facts, this Court is of the view that the appellant could not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 4 months. Thus, loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.57,000/- (Rs.14,250 X 4).
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279 MFA No. 104424 of 2023 HC-KAR
14. Also, considering the totality of evidence produced, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to compensation under following heads:
Heads Amount in Rs. Towards pain and suffering 50,000.00 Towards food, extra nourishment, 20,000.00
attendant and conveyance charges Loss of future earnings 4,00,140.00 Loss of income during laid up period 57,000.00 Medical expenses 1,16,700.00 Loss of amenities in life 20,000.00 TOTAL 6,63,840.00
15. The Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,85,984/- as compensation. However, the aforementioned discussion makes it clear that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,63,840/- as compensation. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279 MFA No. 104424 of 2023 HC-KAR
(ii) The compensation that is assessed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XIII, Banahatti through orders in M.V.C. No.231/2021 dated 13.02.2023 is enhanced from Rs.4,85,984/- to Rs.6,63,840/-.
(iii) Contributory negligence attributed on part of the appellant is set aside.
(iv) Respondents No.1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the assessed amount.
(v) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit entire amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279
MFA No. 104424 of 2023
HC-KAR
(vi) On such deposit, the appellant is
permitted to withdraw the entire
amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
RH
CT-MCK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6