[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr Sukumara vs Mr Safiq Sahil on 13 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15010
MFA No. 9505 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. 9505 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. SUKUMARA
S/O LATE RAGHU BANGERA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT 2-304/4/5/1, BAGAMBILA ROAD
NEAR SATYNARAYANA BAJANA MANDIRA
BAGAMBILA, KOTEKAR VILLAGE
NITHYANANDA NAGARA, MANGALURU
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 008
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. SAFIQ SAHIL
Digitally S/O HAMEED
signed by ADULT, R/AT 2-239/1
AMBIKA H B BARUV RUMBODY
Location: KONAJE POST & VILLAGE
High Court
of Karnataka MANGALURU TALUK & DISTRICT - 575 018
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REP COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR
D.NO.2-6/26 (13), THOKKUTTU
ULLAL MANGALURU TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 012
...RESPONDENTS
(R-1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
BY SRI K.N. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15010
MFA No. 9505 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY/SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 13-06-2018 IN MVC No.25/2017 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MACT-II,
MANGALURU AND CLAIM PETITION BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR
BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
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 claimant/injured challenging the
judgment and award dated 13.06.2018 passed in M.V.C.
No.25/2017 by I Additional District Judge and II Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, D.K.Mangaluru (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. Ms. Pooja Parvathi.U, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed
a grave error in recording the finding that the
appellant/injured was negligent in contributing to the
NC: 2026:KHC:15010
HC-KAR
accident to the extent of 50% by ignoring his evidence. It
is submitted that the appellant had put the indicators on,
to take his vehicle to the left. At that time, the rider of the
offending motorcycle drove his motorcycle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the appellant. It is
submitted that the jurisdictional police filed charge sheet
against the rider of the offending motorcycle. Hence,
recording any finding with regard to contributing evidence
is impermissible. Hence, she seeks to modify the same. It
is submitted that the Tribunal rejected the compensation
under the Head of Medical Reimbursement on the ground
that the appellant got reimbursement from the Chief
Minister's Relief Fund. However, out of Rs.42,700/-, the
appellant got reimbursement to the extent of Rs.21,000/-
and balance amount of Rs.21,700 is required to be paid. It
is submitted that no compensation is awarded under the
Head of Loss of Future Income due to disability and award
of compensation on all other Heads. Hence, she seeks to
NC: 2026:KHC:15010
HC-KAR
enhance the same appropriately by considering the
evidence on record.
4. Per contra Sri K.N. Srinivasa, the learned
counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the
Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that both the riders
of the motorcycle were negligent and accident has
occurred in the middle of the road which can be seen from
Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, spot mahazar and spot sketch of the
record. Hence, the finding of contributory negligence
needs no interference. It is submitted that the appellant
continued his employment after the accident. Hence, there
cannot be any compensation under the Head of Loss of
Income due to disability and award of compensation on all
other Heads is just and fair and does not call for any
interference.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for
NC: 2026:KHC:15010
HC-KAR
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?"
7. The aforesaid point is answered in affirmative
for the following reasons:
The contention of the appellant with regard to
contributory negligence is that the appellant/injured had
showed the indicator as he intended to take left turn and
at that time the rider of the offending vehicle dashed his
motor cycle. Hence, finding with regard to contributory
negligence needs modification.
8. It is to be noticed that police after investigation
filed charge sheet against the rider of the offending
vehicle. The Tribunal mainly relied on Ex.P4 and Ex.P5,
NC: 2026:KHC:15010
HC-KAR
Spot Mahazaar and Spot Sketch which clearly indicates
that the width of the road was 14 feet and in the middle of
the road, accident has occurred.
9. The Tribunal, considering the testimony of PW1
and other material available on record, recorded the
finding with regard to the contributory negligence. It is to
be noticed that the appellant has not examined any
independent witness to corroborate his statement that he
intended to take left turn and hence, he was in the middle
of the road. In absence of independent evidence on
record, this Court cannot believe the self-serving
statement of the appellant. Hence, the finding recorded by
the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence is
affirmed. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the
evidence that the appellant continued his employment
after accident and hence, he is not entitled to
compensation under the Head of Loss and Income due to
disability.
NC: 2026:KHC:15010
HC-KAR
10. It is to be noticed that the appellant got
reimbursement of medical bills to the extent of
Rs.21,000/-. Hence, the appellant is entitled to
reimbursement of balance amount bill of Rs.21,700/-, out
of total bill of Rs.42,700/-. It is noticed that the Tribunal
has awarded just compensation under all Heads, except
Loss of Income during the laid of period.
11. Considering the treatment provided to the
appellant as in-patient and post discharge, I am of the
view that the interest of justice would be met if
Rs.10,000/- compensation is awarded under the said
Head.
12. For the aforementioned reasons, I have
proceeded to pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award dated
13.06.2018 passed by the Tribunal in
M.V.C.No.25/2017 is modified to the extent that
NC: 2026:KHC:15010
HC-KAR
the appellant is entitled to additional
compensation of Rs.21,700/- + Rs.10,000/-
=Rs.31,700/-.
c) The enhanced 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 enhanced
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.
e) The rest of the judgment and award of the
Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit
and release shall remain unaltered.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
KPS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
