[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shafi Ahmed vs Channakeshava. R on 13 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15006
MFA No. 314 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SHAFI AHMED
S/O. ABDUL JABBAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
DRIVER AND OWNER OF AUTO
R/O. BELT ROAD
SHANKARAPURA
4TH CROSS
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVASHANKAR S.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHANNAKESHAVA. R
Digitally S/O. RAMASHETTY
signed by AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
AMBIKA H B KSRTC BUS DRIVER
Location: MUDIGERE DEPOT - 577 102
High Court
of Karnataka DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS
BEARING NO. KA-18-F-717
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, CHIKKAMAGALUR DIVISION
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 102
...RESPONDENTS
(R-1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15006
MFA No. 314 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1908
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MVC
NO.141/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & C.J.M., & M.A.C.T. AT CHIKKAMAGALURU DATED
13/10/2017 BY MODIFYING THE AWARD BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
(CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the injured/appellant challenging
the judgment and award dated 13.10.2017 passed in
M.V.C.No.141/2015 by Principal Senior Civil Judge and
CJM and M.A.C.T., Chikkamagaluru, (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken
up for final disposal.
3. Sri Shiva Shankar S.K., learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has
committed a grave error in recording the finding that the
NC: 2026:KHC:15006
HC-KAR
injured/appellant has contributed to the accident to the
extent of 50% which is only based on the photographs
produced by the respondents. He submitted that the police
after investigation, filed charge sheet against the driver of
the Corporation-Bus and no evidence was placed by the
respondents-Corporation to prove the contributory
negligence. Hence, saddling any liability/negligence on the
part of the injured would be contrary to the evidence on
record. Hence, he seeks to fix the entire liability on the
Corporation. He submitted that the Tribunal has failed to
appreciate the income, disability of the injured and
awarded meagre compensation under all the Heads.
Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Smt. H.R.Renuka, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 supports the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the
Tribunal has recorded clear finding based on Ex.R.2, the
photographs placed by the Corporation and panchanama
at Ex.P4 and came to the conclusion that the driver of the
NC: 2026:KHC:15006
HC-KAR
auto-rickshaw that is, appellant/injured came in the wrong
direction and caused the accident. Hence. the contributory
negligence of 50% is saddled on him. The same does not
call for any interference. It is submitted that the Tribunal
taking note of the nature of injuries suffered, treatment
provided, awarded compensation to the claimant on all
Heads which are higher side. The same does not call for
any enhancement. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material
available on record.
6. The only point that would arise for
consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal calls for any
interference?"
NC: 2026:KHC:15006
HC-KAR
7. The above point is answered in the 'affirmative'
for the following reason:
The material on record indicates that on 24.12.2014,
the appellant himself was driving the auto rickshaw and
proceeding towards the Mudigere from Chikkamagaluru. At
the time, he met with a road accident. It is averred that
the bus driver of Corporation was negligent and caused
the accident.
8. It is admitted fact that the jurisdictional police
after investigation in Crime No.260/2014, filed charge
sheet against the driver of the bus for the negligent act.
9. The Tribunal considering the said aspect and
recorded the finding that the appellant as well as the
driver of the bus have contributed to the accident equally
and saddled the liability accordingly. It is to be noticed
that Ex.P4 is copy of the panchanama and Ex.R2 are the
photographs on record which indicate that the auto
rickshaw was proceeding from Chikkamagalur to Mudigere
and the bus was coming from opposite direction i.e. from
NC: 2026:KHC:15006
HC-KAR
Mudigere to Chikkamagalur. The records also indicate that
the road runs north to south and the accident spot is
shown towards eastern portion of the road, on which side
the bus was coming. Considering the said aspect, the
Tribunal recorded the finding that the appellant has
contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%.
10. On re-examining the oral evidence of PW-1,
RW-1, Ex.R2 and Ex.P4 and the charge sheet material, I
am of the considered view that the contributory negligence
is required to be modified by considering the evidence
available on record and also keeping in mind that the
police has filed charge sheet only against the driver of the
bus.
11. Considering these aspects, the contributory
negligence is modified by holding that the appellant/
injured has contributed to the accident to the extent of
35% and the bus driver of respondent No.2-Corporation
has contributed to the extent of 65%. To the aforesaid
NC: 2026:KHC:15006
HC-KAR
extent, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal
is modified.
12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, the Tribunal assessed the income of the
injured at Rs.10,000/- per month, assessed the disability
at 18%. The detailed finding of the Tribunal can be noticed
from para 13 to para 15 of the judgment.
13. The perusal of the injuries suffered, surgery
undergone by the appellant, I am of the considered view
that the Tribunal has fully justified in assessing the
disability at 18%. Admittedly, there is no evidence on
record with regard to the income of the injured/appellant.
The Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.10,000/- per
month, which does not call for any modification. It is also
to be noticed that the Tribunal rightly awarded
compensation on all other Heads and award of
compensation by the Tribunal is just and fair and does not
call for any enhancement. Hence, I pass the following:
NC: 2026:KHC:15006
HC-KAR
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award dated
13.10.2017 passed by the Tribunal in
M.V.C.No.141/2015 is modified by holding that
respondent No.2-Corporation is liable to make
good of the 65% of the total compensation
(i.e `4,96,000/-) awarded by the Tribunal to the
aforesaid extent.
c) The difference of compensation shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till realisation.
d) Respondent No.2 shall deposit the
compensation amount with accrued interest
before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of the certified copy of
this judgment.
NC: 2026:KHC:15006
HC-KAR
e) The rest of the judgment and award of the
Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit
and release shall remain unaltered.
f) Registry shall transmit the records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
KPS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
