Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38858
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
UMESH M ADIGA
PREMA D/O DINESH C Y – Appellant
Versus
SANTHOSH KUMAR S S/O CHIKKEGOWDA – Respondent
MFA 804/2020
Important Points
Subject
Motor Vehicle Accidents - Compensation Enhancement
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Negligence - Contributory negligence - The Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence held erroneous; mere lack of a driving license or helmet does not inherently establish negligent riding. (Paras 11, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
On 15.06.2018, both claimants were involved in an accident while riding a motorcycle due to the rash riding of the offending vehicle, leading to injuries including fractures and permanent disabilities. (Para 3)
Findings of Court:
The appeals are allowed in part, awarding enhanced compensation based on notional income and assessments of disability without altering other compensation heads. (Para 21)
Issues: The key issues involved assessing the genuineness of earning capacity and determining the appropriate compensation in light of contributory negligence. (Paras 10, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The finding of contributory negligence was deemed unwarranted; the court emphasized that mere violations of regulations like helmet use or holding a valid license do not equate to negligence. Enhanced compensation was calculated based on objective assessments of disability and notional income. (Paras 10, 15, 20)
Result: Appeals allowed in part; enhanced compensation awarded of Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.4,60,000/- for MFA No.804/2020 and MFA No.620/2020 respectively, with interest at 6%. (Para 23)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of appeal case details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. accident caused by negligent riding. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. tribunal's assessment of evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. arguments regarding inadequacy of compensation. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. claimants' appeal on negligence assignment. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. defendant's contestation of negligence and compensation awarded. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 7. legal interpretation of negligence based on license validity. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. assessment of claimant's earning capacity post-injury. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 9. final assessment of compensation amounts. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 10. final judgment and order details. (Para 21 , 22) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Both these appeals arises out of common judgment and award dated 29.03.2019 passed in MVC Nos.1303/2018 and 1304/2018 by the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (sit at Channarayapatna), (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The claimant in MVC No.1303/2018 filed appeal in MFA No.804/2020 and claimant in MVC No.1304/2018 filed MFA No.620/2020 seeking enhancement of compensation.
Both the claim petitions arise out of a common accident and therefore, taken up for common disposal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 15.06.2018, the claimant in MVC No.1304/2018 was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-U-1652 and the claimant in MVC No.1303/2018 was the pillion rider of the said motorcycle. Both of them were going towards Chanarayapatna. Near Beruru Village, Channarayapatna Taluk, they met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-06-ES-8527 (for short 'offending vehicle') by its rider. As a result, the claimant in MVC No.1303/2018 sustained fracture of shaft of tibia and the claimant in MVC No. 1304/2018 sustained commuted fracture of proximal third shaft of tibia and fibula of left leg. Both had taken treatment and both have suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, they have filed different claim petitions claiming compensation.
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of offending motorcycle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 filed the written statement denying contents of the claim petition and denied its liability to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.
6. The claimants to prove their case examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 33 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-33. Respondents have not led any oral and documentary evidence.
7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment, disposed of both the claim petitions, awarding the following amount of compensation:
IN MVC NO.1303/2018 IN MVC NO.1304/2018
8. The Tribunal held that the accident occured due to contributory negligence of the claimant in MVC No.1304/2018 and rider of the offending motorcycle. The Tribunal has awarded global compensation under each head without making much effort to assess the amount based on the materials available on record.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant vehemently contends that, in MFA No.804/2020, the claimant is an agriculturist and possesses a property extract marked as Ex.P.8. It is further submitted that she was selling milk to the dairy and has obtained a certificate to that effect, marked as Ex.P.7. She was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has not at all considered the same. He further contends that the Tribunal has awarded global compensation under the head of loss of amenities, permanent disability and other expenses. He further stated that there was no proper evaluation of the claimant's income, which has adversely affected the determination of her earning capacity. Appellant has no objection regarding the amount aw
