Karnataka High Court
Sri Bylaarasaiah vs L And T Insurance Co Ltd on 15 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36532
MFA No. 7428 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
M.F.A. NO. 7428 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI BYLAARASAIAH
S/O GANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.14, AGASARAHALLI
THONACHINAKUPPE
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-563 127
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. L AND T INSURANCE CO LTD
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA MAGARTH ROAD
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH
ASHOK NAGARA
COURT OF BENGALURU -560 025
KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
2. SRI SHAM SUNDAR B A
S/O ASHWATH NARAYAN
NO.16, 4TH BLOCK,
33RD CROSS 11TH MAIN
JAYANAGAR, NEAR VIJAY PARTY HALL
BENGALURU-560 041
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADITYA N. SUTYUPPANAVAR., ADVOCATE FOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36532
MFA No. 7428 of 2018
HC-KAR
SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04/12/2017, PASSED IN MVC
NO.6916/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ACMM., MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-23), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section
173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment
and award dated 04.12.2017 passed in MVC
No.6916/2016, by the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge
and MACT, Bangalore and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is
retained for the sake of convenience.
NC: 2025:KHC:36532
HC-KAR
3. The injured claimant filed the claim application
claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal
considering the entire evidence on record, granted
compensation of Rs.2,32,261/- with interest at 6% per
annum from the date of petition till deposit.
4. It was stated before the Tribunal that petitioner
while crossing the road met with an accident due to rash
and negligent driving of the Car bearing No. KA-05-MK-
4666. The Tribunal considering the manner of accident,
fixed up the contributory negligence of the petitioner as
20% and that of the car driver as 80%. Aggrieved by the
said order, this appeal is preferred.
5. It is contended that no amount was granted for
'loss of income during laid-up period' and the amount
granted under the head 'pain and suffering' is meager. The
appellant submits that he was working as Coolie and was
earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month, but the
Tribunal erred in taking Rs.5,000/- income per month. It is
NC: 2025:KHC:36532
HC-KAR
also contended that meager compensation was granted
under the head 'loss of amenities'. It is also stated that
P.W.2 in his evidence stated that Rs.25,000/- is required
for removal of implants, but the said amount is not
granted and the contributory negligence on the part of the
driver of the car is not assessed properly. Therefore, the
appellant requested for enhancement of compensation.
6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for
both parties.
7. The manner of accident clearly shows that while
petitioner was crossing the road, he met with an accident
due to the negligence of the driver of the car and the
charge sheet is filed against the said driver. In a counter
filed by respondents 1 and 2, they stated that petitioner
was crossing the road negligently without observing the
offending car and as such the accident has occurred only
due to the negligence of the appellant.
NC: 2025:KHC:36532
HC-KAR
8. The plea of contributory negligence was not
taken in the written statement at the earliest point of
time. No eyewitness is examined in this case. The counsel
for the respondent/insurance company contended that
appellant was crossing the road where there was no zebra
crossing and thus the Tribunal rightly considered the
contributory negligence as 20%. It is not the case of the
insurance company that appellant was crossing the road in
a drunken condition.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the
citations of the Contemporary Bench in M.F.A. No.
584/2021 dated 01.08.2022 and in M.F.A. No. 1427/2018
dated 09.03.2020. In the said cases, contributory
negligence of the person who was crossing the road was
set aside on the ground that there was no legal evidence
by the insurance company.
10. It is for the insurance company to plead and
prove the contributory negligence of the petitioner but
NC: 2025:KHC:36532
HC-KAR
they failed to do so. Therefore, this Court finds that the
contributory negligence fixed up by the Tribunal is not on
proper appreciation of facts and needs to be set aside. The
petitioner was aged 61 years and working as a coolie.
Though he stated that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month, he has not produced any proof of income.
Therefore, as the accident has occurred on 18.10.2016,
this Court finds it reasonable to take his income as
Rs.9,500 per month as per the guidelines given by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
11. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that petitioner
sustained Grade I open comminuted fracture both bones
left leg lower third and he underwent surgery. He was
suffering from shooting pain, swelling, tenderness over the
left leg and ankle. He was suffering from physical
permanent disability of 48% in his leg and whole body
disability is assessed as 16%. Considering the said
evidence, the Tribunal has taken the disability as 16%.
This Court finds no reason to interfere with the disability
NC: 2025:KHC:36532
HC-KAR
assessed by the Tribunal. As the petitioner was aged 61
years, the multiplier taken by the Tribunal as 7 is proper.
Therefore, 'loss of future earnings' comes to Rs.1,27,680/-
(Rs.9500/-x12x7x16%).
12. This Court finds it reasonable to enhance the
compensation awarded towards 'loss of amenities' to
Rs.25,000/- and to enhance the compensation awarded
towards 'conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food' to
Rs.30,000/-. The petitioner might not have attended any
other work during laid up period of 3 months due to the
injuries sustained by him. Therefore, this Court finds it
reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.9,500 x 3 =
Rs.28,500/- towards 'loss of income during laid up period'.
13. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the
compensation awarded towards 'Pain and suffering',
'medical expenses' and 'future medical expenses'.
14. Thus in all, award of compensation passed by
the Tribunal is modified as under:
NC: 2025:KHC:36532
HC-KAR
Compensation under Amount
different Heads (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings 40,000/-
Loss of future earnings 1,27,680/-
Medical expenses 1,02,806/-
Conveyance, nourishment 30,000/-
and nutritious food
Loss of amenities of life 25,000/-
Future Medical expenses 10,000/-
Loss of income during laid 28,500/-
up period
Total 3,63,986/-
15. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced from
Rs.2,32,261/- to Rs.3,63,986/-.
16. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii. The judgment and award dated 04.12.2017
passed in MVC No.6916/2016, by the XXI
Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT,
Bangalore, is modified.
NC: 2025:KHC:36532
HC-KAR
iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.3,63,986/- along with interest at 6%
per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization as against Rs.2,32,261/-
iv. Respondent No.1 - Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the said amount within
one month from the date of this order.
v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted
to withdraw the entire amount along with
accrued interest.
vi. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court
forthwith without any delay.
vii. Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
VP
