Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Moseena G

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2025MFA/7399/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In MFA No. 7399 of 2015, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal partly. Modifying the earlier award of Rs. 5,76,000, the Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 3,23,000 with 6% interest due to the claimant's partial negligence and lack of evidence for loss of future earning capacity.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 3,23,000 plus interest at 6% p.a. granted; original award of Rs. 5,76,000 modified and excess refunded to the appellant.

The Managing Director Vs Moseena G — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:23395 MFA No. 7399 of 2015

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7399 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. REPRESETNED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MOSEENA. G. D/O. GULZAR SAB AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.17, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, MUNESWARA LAYOUT B. CHANNASANDRA BANGALORE-560 043.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.4489/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT,XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER,(SCCH-22) BANGALORE, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,76,000, WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION OF THE AMOUNT.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:23395 MFA No. 7399 of 2015

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the Corporation/owner of the bus (Respondent) challenging the judgment and award dated 18^th June 2015, passed by the XX Addl.Small Causes Judge, MACT., Bengaluru (SCCH-22), (for short `Tribunal), in MVC.No.4489/2013.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that, on

¶27

09.11.2012, at about 10:30 a.m., the claimant was riding her motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-53-Q-3927, on her way to work from Basavanapura to Bhagini Restaurant, O.M. Road, at Bhattarahalli Bhagini Restaurant Junction. At that time, the driver of the offending bus bearing registration No. KA-40-F-671 drove his bus in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the claimant’s motorcycle. As a result, the claimant fell down and

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23395 MFA No. 7399 of 2015

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

sustained multiple fractures. She took treatment as an inpatient in different hospitals from 09.11.2012 to 12.01.2013, and from 04.03.2013 to 09.03.2013. She incurred substantial medical and incidental expenses. At the time of the accident, the claimant was 23 years old and employed with Thungabhadra Tex Processors Pvt. Ltd., Banaswadi, Bengaluru, earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she was unable to continue her work. With these reasons, she prayed to award compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

¶31

The respondent-Corporation denied the

¶32

contentions of the claimant. It claimed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. Therefore, the respondent - is not liable to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶33

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination.

¶34

The claimant to prove her case, examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 24 documents,

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23395 MFA No. 7399 of 2015

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

as per Exs.P-1 to P-24. Respondent examined one witness

¶38

as RW-1.

¶39

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and

¶40

appreciating the materials available on record, held that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

¶41

the bus by its driver and awarded the following amount of compensation :

¶42

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering	2,00,000/-
Medical expenses	25,000/-
Food, nourishment, attendant and transportation	50,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	60,000/-
Loss of income due to disability	1,41,000/-
Loss of expectation of life or marriage prospects	50,000/-
Loss of amenities in life	50,000/-
Total	5,76,000/-

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:23395 MFA No. 7399 of 2015

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials on record.

¶47

The learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation vehemently contended that, based on the evidence of PW-1, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the two-wheeler by the claimant. In her crossexamination, she admitted that she was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.

¶48

10. T he learned counsel further contended that, as per the spot mahazar and the map prepared by the police, although the bus was proceeding straight on the main road, the claimant, without stopping her vehicle, suddenly moved to the other side of the road while attempting to cross, and in the process, collided with the left side of the bus and sustained injuries. The Tribunal failed to consider these facts and erroneously held that the entire negligence was on the part of the bus driver.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23395 MFA No. 7399 of 2015

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

11. T he learned counsel further argued that the

¶52

compensation awarded under all heads is on the higher side. The claimant is said to be working in a company, and it is not her case that she left the job after the accident or that the company removed her from employment. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have taken these facts into account and should not have awarded compensation under the head "loss of earning capacity due to disability." Even the amount awarded under the head "pain and suffering" is excessive. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and dismissal of the claim petition.

¶53

Though notice was served on the respondent, she has not appeared.

¶54

Following questions arise for determination:

¶55

" (i) Whether the accident occurred due to exclusive negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle or she had contributed to the accident in question?

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23395 MFA No. 7399 of 2015

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

(ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding the said compensation and does it warrant interference?

¶59

(iii) What order?

¶60

Point No.1 :

¶61

There is some weight in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation. PW-1, in her evidence, stated that she intended to cross the main road at the time of the accident and was riding a twowheeler. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she was traveling from Channasandra to Bhattarahalli to give a test for obtaining a driving licence from the RTO authorities and that she was holding a learner's licence. She also stated that while crossing the main road at the time of the accident, the bus driver was driving the bus on the main road. Furthermore, she admitted that she did not notice the bus prior to the accident. She denied the suggestion that had she waited momentarily before crossing, the accident could have been avoided.

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23395 MFA No. 7399 of 2015

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

The answers provided by PW-1 are sufficient to conclude that she was negligent. Firstly, she was not holding a valid driving licence, although she claimed to have a learner’s licence, she failed to produce the same before the court. Secondly, she was riding the motorcycle alone, and no person holding a valid licence was accompanying her as a pillion rider to guide her, as required by the rules. Thus, there was a violation of the driving licence conditions by the claimant.

¶65

In addition, she was crossing a busy main road (from K.R. Puram to Hoskote), and according to her own testimony, she did not stop to observe the traffic movement before attempting to cross. All these factors indicate that she contributed to the occurrence of the accident.

¶66

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the bus driver. As per the map, the accident occurred on a straight stretch of road. The bus driver could

¶67

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:23395 MFA No. 7399 of 2015

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

have avoided the accident. It appears the claimant’s twowheeler had already crossed about 50% of the road. Given the straight road, the driver could have either slowed down or stopped the vehicle but failed to do so. In his evidence, he claimed the accident was solely due to the negligence of the motorcyclist. Admittedly, he was acquitted in the criminal case registered in connection with the accident. Therefore, based solely on RW-1’s testimony, the entire negligence cannot be attributed to the claimant. For the aforesaid discussion, the contribution of driver of the bus in causing the accident in question is taken as 75% and negligence of rider of two wheeler - claimant as 25%. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

¶70

Point No.2 :

¶71

On perusal of the evidence and re-appreciation of the materials on record, there is no evidence to show that the claimant left her job after the accident or that she was removed from service due to disability. There is no mention of this either in her examination-in-chief or during

¶72

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:23395 MFA No. 7399 of 2015

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

cross-examination. Therefore, it is to be presumed that she continued in her employment and continued to earn her salary. Under these circumstances, awarding compensation under the head "loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability" is not justified. However, she may be entitled to additional compensation under the head "loss of amenities" due to the injuries sustained in the accident.

¶75

According to her evidence, she did not work for about six months and lost her earnings. However, the Tribunal awarded compensation under the head "loss of income during laid-up period" for one year, which is incorrect. Even the compensation awarded under the head "pain and suffering" is on the higher side and requires reassessment.

¶76

20. For the aforesaid discussion, following amount of compensation is awarded:

¶77

11 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:23395 MFA No. 7399 of 2015

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

Particulars Amount in
Rs.
Pain and suffering 1,75,000/-
Medical expenses 25,000/-
Food, attendant and conveyance 50,000/-
expenses
Loss of income during laid up period 30,000/-
(Rs.5,000/- x 6)
Loss of amenities 1,00,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects 50,000/-
Total 4,30,000/-
Claimant is entitled to 75% of 3,22,500/-
Rs.4,30,000/- from respondent.
Rounded off - 3,23,000/-

¶81

Claimant is also entitled for interest on the amount of

¶82

compensation at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶83

For the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass

¶84

the following:

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:23395 MFA No. 7399 of 2015

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

ORDER

¶89

i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶90

ii) The judgment and award dated 18^th June 2015 , passed in MVC.No.4489/2013, by the XX Addl.Small Causes Judge & M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (SCCH-22), stands modified;

¶91

iii) The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,23,000/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against 5,76,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶92

iv) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal has been deposited before the Tribunal. As the said amount is in excess of the entitlement of the claimant, the excess amount shall be refunded to the appellant-Corporation on due acknowledgment. The amount deposited before this Court i.e., Rs.25,000/- shall be transmitted to the Tribunal to comply the said order.

¶93

v) Draw award accordingly.

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:23395 MFA No. 7399 of 2015

¶95

13 -

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

Registry is directed to send back the records along

¶98

with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.

¶99

Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶100

bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

The Managing Director v. Moseena G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Moseena G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chethankumar @ Chethan Vs Thangavel

Anwar Khan Vs Sri Ramu

Mr Syed Yaseen Vs Mrs Nasreen Banu

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Soorya Kumar

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Shusheela

K Lokesh Vs Mr G a Nagendra