Karnataka High Court
Shri. Riyaja S/O Dongarisab Bagavan vs Shri. Siddanagaouda S/O Bhimanagouda ... on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286
MFA No. 101467 of 2022
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. 101467 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI RIYAJA S/O. DONGARISAB BAGAVAN,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BILAGI, NOW RESIDING AT
C/O. MASTANSAB RAJESAB BAGAVAN,
APMC ROAD, BEHIND BIDARI FACTORY,
GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. YASH FOR SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI SIDDANAGAOUDA
S/O. BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
GIRIJA A. R/O. BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI,
BYAHATTI
DIST: BAGALKOT.
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
OPP: FOREST OFFICE,
BUS STAND ROAD GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286
MFA No. 101467 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 07.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1101/2019 BY THE XII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI
SITTING AT GOKAK, IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
1,96,000/- BY HOLDING 50% CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
WITH 6% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION MAY BE KINDLY
MODIFIED BY ENHANCING AS PRAYED FOR WITH 18%
INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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)
1. Heard Sri. Yash, who represents Sri. Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Iranagouda K. Kabbur, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Sri. Shivanand Malashetti, learned counsel for respondent No.1 stated that respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to answer the claim and hence he has nothing more to submit.
2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286 MFA No. 101467 of 2022 HC-KAR sitting at Gokak in MVC No.1101/2019 dated 07.04.2021. This is a claimant's appeal.
3. The appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- in total projecting a version that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2018 and the said accident solely occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor which is involved in the accident. The Tribunal attributed contributory negligence to an extent of 50% upon the appellant herein. Having held that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,92,000/- as compensation, the Tribunal ordered respondents to pay 50% of the said amount i.e., Rs.1,96,000/-.
4. The appeal, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, is filed on two grounds. Firstly, the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and thus entire liability has to -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286 MFA No. 101467 of 2022 HC-KAR be fixed against the respondents herein. Secondly, the compensation granted is grossly low.
5. Arguing on the first ground, learned counsel for the appellant states that, due to negligence of the driver of the tractor alone the accident occurred, but without any basis the Tribunal held that the appellant is equally liable for the cause of accident.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the appellant was equally at fault. Learned counsel contends that the Tribunal basing on Exhibit P5 - sketch, came to a just conclusion that the appellant as well as the driver of the tractor which is involved in the accident are equally at fault and therefore the observations of the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence against both require no interference.
7. In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the appellant states that the spot sketch alone cannot -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286 MFA No. 101467 of 2022 HC-KAR form the basis to attribute contributory negligence. On the said aspect, learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and others1, wherein their Lordships in para 36 of the judgment observed as under:
"36. The site plan (Ext.3) has been produced in evidence before the Tribunal by witness AD 1 (Appellant 1 herein) and the record seems to indicate that the accident occurred in the middle of the road. However, the exact location of the accident, as marked out in the site plan, has not been explained much less proved through a competent witness by the respondents to substantiate their defence. Besides, the police official concerned who prepared the site plan has also not been examined. While the existence of the site plan may not be in doubt, it is difficult to accept the theory propounded on the basis of the site plan to record a finding against the appellants regarding negligence attributable to deceased Sitaram, more so in absence of ocular evidence to prove and explain the contents of the site plan."1
(2020) 13 SCC 486 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286 MFA No. 101467 of 2022 HC-KAR
8. The manner of happening of accident as projected by the appellant is that, on 03.12.2018 at about 11.15 a.m., while he was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-29/EA-8424 and was proceeding from Talasal towards Bilagi and when he reached near R.C. toilet in Garadadinni on Talasal-Bilagi road, the driver of a tractor bearing registration No.KA-29/TB- 3468 approached from a supplementary road by driving the tractor negligently and joined Talasal- Bilagi road and dashed against his motorcycle, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries.
9. It is not in dispute that a case was registered basing on the complaint given, police investigated into the case, visited the spot, prepared spot panchanama, drafted sketch map, examined relevant witnesses, recorded their statements and finally laid charge sheet against the driver of the tractor alone. The first respondent, that is the owner of the tractor in question, who is represented by his counsel before -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286 MFA No. 101467 of 2022 HC-KAR this Court, failed to state anything with regard to the pleas taken by the appellant. No denial in respect of the contents of the charge sheet was made, wherein it is held that, due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor, the accident occurred. The second respondent, who had taken a specific plea that the appellant was also at fault, neither examined any of the witnesses nor produced any documentary proof to establish its contention. Therefore, basing on the aforementioned decision and the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.
10. Now coming to the quantum of compensation which the appellant is entitled to, Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,92,000/- as compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the said sum is grossly low. As per the version of the appellant, he was working as an -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286 MFA No. 101467 of 2022 HC-KAR agricultural coolie as on the date of accident and he was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. However, the appellant failed to produce any proof to that effect. But considering the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellant that the accident occurred in the year 2018 and for the relevant period the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad, is taking the notional income as Rs.11,750/- per month, this Court is of the view that the said figure is required to be adopted.
11. Though learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the disability in respect of whole body has to be taken as 40%, however, considering the discussion of the Tribunal in respect of assessment of disability, this Court is of the view that the disability of 12% in respect of whole body as assessed by the Tribunal needs no interference.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286 MFA No. 101467 of 2022 HC-KAR
12. Therefore, taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.11,750/- per month, applying the appropriate multiplier 15 and the disability in respect of whole body as 12%, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to towards 'loss of future earnings' comes to Rs. 2,53,800/- (Rs.11,750x12x15x12%).
13. Undisputedly, the appellant sustained fracture to right hip and compound fracture to right patella. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, 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.47,000/- (Rs.11,750 x 4).
14. Having considered the evidence produced and in the light of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to compensation under the following heads:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286
MFA No. 101467 of 2022
HC-KAR
Head of Compensation Amount
(Rs.)
Pain and suffering 40,000.00
Towards food, extra nourishment, 15,000.00
conveyance and attendant charges Loss of future earnings 2,53,800.00 Loss of income during laid-up period 47,000.00 Medical expenses 79,083.00 Loss of amenities in life 15,000.00 Total 4,49,883.00
15. Thus, it is clear that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,49,883/- as compensation. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following order:
ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The compensation that is assessed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak through orders in MVC No.1101/2019 dated 07.04.2021 is enhanced from Rs.3,92,000/- to Rs.4,49,883/-.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286 MFA No. 101467 of 2022 HC-KAR iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
iv. Contributory negligence attributed on the part of the appellant is set aside.
v. Respondents 1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as assessed. vi. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. vii. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12