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,

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286

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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286

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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286

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."

(2020) 13 SCC 486

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286

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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286

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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286

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.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16286

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



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

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