[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
C.S. Mahadeva vs The Divisional Controller on 16 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
MFA No. 9690 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9690 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
C.S. MAHADEVA,
S/O SIDDASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT PUNAJANURU,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 303.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSRTC,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIVISION,
CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 303.
Digitally
Signed by 2. R.GEETHA,
REKHA R W/O RAVI,
Location : NO.12/17, THYAGARAJA ROAD,
High Court
of Karnataka CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN - 571 303.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
INFRONT OF FIRE BRIGADE,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSORE - 570 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. RENUKA H R., ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. D.C. DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI. K. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
MFA No. 9690 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.11.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.166/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement
as well as the contributory negligence fastened on him at
the rate of 10%, arising out of Judgment and award dated
07.11.2016 in M.V.C.No.166/2015 passed by the Prl.
District and Sessions Judge, M.A.C.T, Chamarajanagar (for
short 'the Tribunal').
2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings
before the Tribunal.
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
HC-KAR
3. In an accident occurred 15.03.2015, the
claimant sustained injuries as stated by the doctor in his
evidence as under:
"He was brought in comatose state with
severe head injury. He also has bilateral ear bleed,
injury in face and repeated vomiting. He was
brought from J.S.S Hospital as they could not
afford financially. C.T Head on 15-03-2015 showed
hemorrhagic contusion in Right Parieto temporal
lobe. there is mass effect in the form of
obliteration of basal cisterns with midline shift of
3.mm. Contusion in occipital lobe, SAH with few
air pocket's (#) Fracture of right temporal bone.
Fracture hemomastial soft tissue opacification in
external auditory canal and various other injuries
in skull noted."
The claimant was an in-patient for 25 days but
received conservative treatment. As per the claimant, he
has incurred sum of Rs.6,878/- towards medical expenses.
4. As per the doctor, the claimant suffered 25%
disability to the whole body. The Tribunal considering the
fact that the disability is suffered to the brain, treated it as
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
HC-KAR
whole body disability and awarded compensation of
Rs.2,95,900/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Five Thousand
and Nine Hundred only) fastening 10% contributory
negligence on the claimant, 10% on the Car parked on the
wrong side of the road and 80% on the driver of the Bus.
Calling in question the contributory negligence fixed at
10% on the claimant and seeking enhancement of
compensation, this appeal is filed.
5. Heard, Sri.Sanath Kumara.K.M., learned
counsel for the appellant, Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned
counsel for respondent No.1 - Corporation,
Sri.D.C.Deepak., learned counsel for respondent No.2 -
owner of the Car involved in the accident and
Sri.K.Suresh., learned counsel for respondent No.3 -
Insurer of the Car.
6. Sri.Sanath Kumara.K.M., with all vehemence
submits that the spot mahazar as well as the complaint
clearly shows that it is the driver of the bus who was
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
HC-KAR
responsible for the accident so also the driver of the car
for wrong parking the car which has caused the clog in
moving the traffic. As such, both the drivers of the car as
well as the bus are responsible for the accident. The
Tribunal without considering this aspect of the matter,
fastened the liability of 10% on the claimant without there
being any fault attributable to him. So far as enhancement
is concerned, learned counsel submits that the
compensation awarded when compared to injuries suffered
are sparse. The accident had occurred in the year 2015
and as per the Chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal
Service Authority for settlement of cases before the Lok-
Adalat, the income for the year 2015 is fixed at Rs.9,000/.
However, the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.6,000/-
and considering the age as 55 years had applied multiplier
of 11. He submits that the income as fixed under the chart
must be taken into consideration and the compensation
awarded except Medical Expenses must be enhanced
considering the injuries sustained by the claimant.
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
HC-KAR
7. Both the Insurer of the Care as well as the
Corporation opposed the enhancement. So far as the
liability is concerned, Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that the
Corporation has examined its driver and two witnesses to
substantiate their claim that it is the car which is parked
on the wrong side, caused clogging of traffic and the
pedestrian who moved abruptly in the running traffic is
responsible for the accident. The Tribunal though
considered this aspect of the matter, but fastened the
liability only to the extent of 10% on the pedestrian and
10% on the car. Though the Corporation is not in appeal,
considering the material placed by the claimant as well as
the Corporation, the percentage of liability on both driver
of the Car as well as the pedestrian may be enhanced at
least to the extent of 20% each. So far as compensation is
concerned, Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that the Tribunal
having considered the entire material on record,
appropriately awarded compensation by taking the income
at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month in the absence of any
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
HC-KAR
proof of income. With this, counsel submits that liability
fastened on the Corporation be reduced to the extent of
60% and fasten the liability of 20% each on the claimant
and the driver of the offending car and accordingly modify
the judgment.
8. Per contra, Sri.K.Suresh., learned Counsel
appearing for the insurer of the Car, submits that though
the car was parked on the wrong side, but it was stationed
for the purpose of filling up of air in the tyre and the bus
which came in rash and negligent manner in a busy road,
caused the accident. In these circumstances, the driver of
the bus should be held liable for the entire accident and
the percentage of liability fastened on owner of the Car be
set aside. The entire liability should be fastened on the
driver of the Corporation and sought to modify the award.
So far as compensation is concerned, he argued in line
with Smt.H.R.Renuka.
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
HC-KAR
9. Having heard the submissions, the following
questions would arise for consideration:
1) Whether the Claimant has made out a
case to interfere with the liability of
contributory negligence fastened on him?
2) Whether the Claimant has made out a
case for enhancement?
10. My answer to the above points for consideration
are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 : Partly in affirmative, for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1: A perusal of the evidence of
respondent No.1 - Driver of the bus clearly shows that the
driver of the vehicle is responsible for the accident. The
way in which the evidence has been led does not inspire
confidence to accept the averments stated in the evidence.
The driver of the bus has stated in his evidence as under:
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
HC-KAR
"¢£ÁAPÀ 15-3-2015 gÀAzÀÄ PÉJ¸Ágïn¹ §¸ï ¸ÀASÉå PÉJ-
10:J¥sï 0131 gÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀð ¸ÀASÉå 21 PÉÌ ZÁ®PÀ£ÁV
¤AiÀÄÄQÛUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ ZÁªÀÄgÁd£ÀUÀgÀ¢AzÀ
ªÉÄʸÀÆjUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä §¸ï ¤¯ÁÝtªÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 11-40
gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ZÁªÀÄgÁd£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÀZÀÑ¥Àà ªÀÈvÀÛzÀ §½ ¹UÀ߯ï
EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV §¸Àì£ÀÄß ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀZÀÑ¥Àà ªÀÈvÀÛ¢AzÀ rëAiÉÄõÀ£ï gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄÄ
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ ¸ÀAvÉêÀÄgÀ½î ¸ÀPÀð¯ïªÀgÉ«UÀÆ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄÄ CvÀåAvÀ
d£À¸ÀAzÀt ºÁUÀÆ zÀlÖ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ NqÁqÀĪÀAvÀºÀ KPÀªÀÄÄR ¸ÀAZÁgÀ
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, F PÁgÀt¢AzÀ ¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
eÁUÀgÀÆPÀ£ÁV §¸Àì£ÀÄß ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀZÀÑ¥Àà ªÀÈvÀÛ¢AzÀ
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 200 «ÄÃ. ªÀÄÄAzÉ §AzÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è
PÁgÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÀt ¸ÀASÉå PÉJ-03:JAPÉ 5066 ¤AwzÀÄÝ, ¥ÁzÀZÁj
M§â£ÀÄ PÁj£À ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ vÀPÀët gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ CqÀدÁV ªÀÄÄAzÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ,
D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÁzÀZÁjAiÀÄÄ £Á£ÀÄ ZÁ®£ÉªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ
PÉJ¸ïDgïn¹ §¸ï §gÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ £ÉÆÃr vÀPÀët
UÁ¨sÀj¬ÄAzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀå¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ »AzÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV vÁ£Éà ¸ÀévÀ:
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ¤AwzÀÝAvÀºÀ PÁj£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©¢ÝgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ
PÁj£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÀÄÝ gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ ©zÀÝ ¥ÀjuÁªÀĪÁV DvÀ¤UÉ
UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. vÀPÀët DvÀ£ÀߣÀÄ D ¸ÀܼÀ¢AzÀ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ
PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr £Á£ÀÄ
¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß w½¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
12. In the accident, as per the medical records, the
claimant has suffered fracture of the skull and severe
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
HC-KAR
damage to the brain resulting in 25% disability. If the
evidence of the driver of the bus is considered as it is, the
accident of such severity in all probability may not arise.
This clearly shows that it is the driver of the bus is
responsible for the accident. There is no effective cross-
examination of PW.1 by the corporation to deny the
accident. The severity of impact could be assessed by the
injuries suffered on the skull. In these circumstances, the
Tribunal in the absence of any contra evidence placed
even on preponderance of probabilities, erred in holding
that the pedestrian had contributed 10% negligence to the
accident.
13. One more reason this Court finds is, the road is
a busy road. The way in which the accident occurred and
the injuries suffered clearly show the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the bus. In these circumstances,
the liability fastened on the pedestrian to the extent of
10% requires to be set aside and accordingly it is set
aside.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
HC-KAR
14. POINT NO.2: So far as the enhancement of
compensation is concerned, the CT scan report clearly
reveals that all the cranial bones were fractured, resulting
in severe damage to the brain to the extent of 25%.
Considering this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has
awarded compensation. However, except the
compensation under the heads of Medical Expenses and
Pain and Suffering, all other heads seems to be on
downside. The income taken at the rate of Rs.6,000/- is
against the income fixed under the Chart stated supra.
The accident is of the year 2015. In these circumstances,
the income must be considered at Rs.9,000/- per month.
The Tribunal has failed to consider the case of the claimant
to award any compensation under the head of Loss of
Amenities. Accordingly, the claimant is also entitled for
compensation under the head "Loss of Amenities" in a sum
of Rs.40,000/-. Considering the higher income and on re-
appreciation, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
HC-KAR
requires reconsideration. Accordingly, on reassessment,
the Claimant is entitled for the following compensation:
Compensation Re-assessed
awarded by compensation
Sl.No. Heads the Tribunal by this Court
Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs.
1. Towards injury, pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
2. Towards medical expenses Rs.6,900/- Rs.6,900/-
3. Towards food, extra nourishment Rs.3,000/- Rs.8,000/-
and medical attendant
4. Towards Conveyance Rs.2,000/- Rs.5,000/-
5. Towards loss of income during Rs.36,000/- Rs.45,000/-
treatment
(9,000 X 5 months)
6. Towards disability and loss of Rs.1,98,000/- Rs.2,97,000/-
future earning
(9,000 X 12 X 11 X 25%)
7. Towards loss of amenities - Rs.40,000/-
TOTAL Rs.2,95,900/- Rs.4,51,900/-
Re-assessed Compensation Rs.4,51,900/-
15. Both the Corporation as well as respondent
No.3 - Insurer of the Car are liable to pay the re-
determined compensation along with interest at the rate of
6% per annum, proportionately as per the liability
fastened after deducting the amount that has already been
deposited. Both the Corporation as well as respondent
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
HC-KAR
No.3- Insurer are liable to pay compensation at the rate of
90% and 10% respectively.
16. Accordingly this Court has to pass a following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The contributory negligence of 10%
fastened on the claimant - appellant is
hereby set-aside. The driver of the
Corporation is liable to pay compensation
at the rate of 90% and the Insurer is liable
to pay compensation at the rate of 10%.
Accordingly, the Judgment and Award
dated 07.11.2016 in M.V.C.No.166/2015
passed by the Prl. District and Sessions
Judge, MACT, Chamarajanagar is modified.
(iii) The Corporation - first respondent and the
Insurer - third respondent shall pay their
percentage of liability on re-determined
compensation deducting the amount that
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9268
HC-KAR
has already been deposited before the
Tribunal, along with interest stated supra
from the date of petition till realization
except 285 days delay as per the order
dated 15.07.2022, within six weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(iv) The Tribunal upon deposit, shall release the
entire amount in favour of the claimant
after due identification.
(v) The trial Court record shall be transmitted
forthwith to the concerned Tribunal without
causing any delay.
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
ct-vn
