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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279
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
(2018) 1 SCC 750
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279
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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279
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,
(2009) 6 SCC 121
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16279
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
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
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
HC-KAR
(vi) On such deposit, the appellant is
permitted to withdraw the entire
amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
RH
CT-MCK
