Venkatesh Vs Mr R Kulandaival — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

Venkatesh Vs Mr R Kulandaival — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both MFAs allowed in part: (a) claimant in MVC No.7152/2011 granted enhancement of Rs.15,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till realisation; the Tribunal's order restricting him to 90% of compensation set aside, entitling him to the entire Rs.35,000/- (Rs.20,000/- + Rs.15,000/-) with interest; (b) claimants in MVC No.6991/2010 granted Rs.54,000/- (Rs.60,000/- medical and incidental expenses less 10% for the deceased rider's contribution) with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation; respondent No.2-insurer to deposit the amounts within six weeks; entire compensation ordered released to the claimants on proper identification; award to be drawn accordingly.

Issue for consideration

In MFA No.9021/2013: whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? +1 more

Court's answer

The claimant in MVC No.7152/2011 is entitled to Rs.15,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal, taking his total global compensation to Rs.35,000/-.

Ratio / Principle

Deduction of 10% of the compensation on the ground of the motorcycle rider's contributory/composite negligence is not permissible, because the claimant (pillion rider) had not contributed anything to the accident; the Tribunal erred in making the deduction and its award required modification.

Key takeaways

Since the deceased died due to consumption of poison and not due to the injuries sustained in the accident, his legal heirs are not entitled to compensation under the other heads, but are entitled to reimbursement of the amounts spent on his treatment.ratio¶¶103
The Tribunal failed to consider the deceased's undisputed medical and incidental expenses (hospital and medical-store receipts at Ex.P-14 totalling Rs.37,742/-); the deceased/claimants are entitled to the amounts so spent.ratio¶¶102

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act - Section 173(1) appeals against common award dated 26.03.2013 of MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-10) arising from an accident on 23.05.2010 involving motorcycle AP-03-E-8924 and Tusker lorry TN-34-F-5787, held due to composite negligence of the motorcycle rider and the lorry driver. (i) Injury claim (MVC No.7152/2011): the pillion-rider claimant having contributed nothing to the accident, the Tribunal's 10% deduction for the rider's contributory negligence was held impermissible and set aside; compensation enhanced by Rs.15,000/- to a total of Rs.35,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. (ii) Death claim (MVC No.6991/2010): the deceased rider having died of poison consumption during the pendency of the petition, his legal heirs were held not entitled to compensation under the other heads, but were entitled to reimbursement of his medical and incidental expenses; Rs.60,000/- awarded, less 10% as the deceased was himself the rider, leaving Rs.54,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Respondent No.2-insurer (Royal Sundaram Alliance) held liable to deposit within six weeks; entire compensation ordered released on proper identification. Appeals allowed in part.

NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9021 OF 2013(MV-I)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9223 OF 2013(MV-D)

IN MFA No. 9021/2013

BETWEEN:

VENKATESH @ VENKATESHWARA S/O LAKSHMANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ADDAVARAPALLI VILLAGE, KALIKARI MANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

…APPELLANT

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR.R. KULANDAIVAL, S/O RAMASWAMY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/O NO. 2/104, ALANGKATTU KALLANAKATTU, VALASU POST, KOMARAPALYAM THIRUCHENGODU TALUK & DISTRICT TAMILNADU STATE- 560 001. (OWNER OF THE TUSKER LORRY BEARING REG.NO. TN-34-F-5787)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

HC-KAR

M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD MANGALYA PUNARBHAV # 132, BRIGADE ROAD BANGALORE-560 025 VIDE COVER NOTE NO. 1233462 DATED 23/10/2009, VALID FROM 24/10/2009 TO 23/10/2010

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 29.09.2015, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.3.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7152/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO. 9223/2013

BETWEEN:

SMT. S. DHANAMMA W/O LATE SUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDENT OF LAKSHMINARAYANASWAMY ROAD, MUNNEKOLALU, BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE-560 076 ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR.R.KULANDAIVAL S/O RAMASWAMY MAJOR IN AGE, R/O NO.2/104, ALANGKATTU KALLANAKATTU,

- 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

HC-KAR

VALASU POST, KOMARAPALYAM, THIRUCHENGODU TALUK & DISTRICT TAMILNADU STATE - 677 211 (OWNER OF THE TUSKER LORRY BEARING REG. NO.TN-34-F-5787)

M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MANGALYA PUNARBHAV NO.132, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025 VIDE COVER NOTE NO.1233462 DATED 23/10/2009, VALID FROM 24/10/2009 TO 23/10/2010.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 23.09.2015, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.6991/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BANGALORE,DISMISSIG THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT

These appeals arise out of common judgment and

award dated 26^th March 2013, passed by the M.A.C.T.,

Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, (SCCH-10), (for

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

HC-KAR

short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.7152/2011 and 6991/2011. Claimant in MVC No.7152/2011 filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and legal heirs of K.Ashok, who died in the accident, filed the appeal challenging the dismissal of their petition by the Tribunal. Both appeals arise out of common judgment and hence taken up together for disposal and common judgment is passed.

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

In MFA.No.9021/2013 :

Brief facts of the case are that, on 23.05.2010, at about 9.30 p.m., claimant along with deceased K.Ashok and another claimant in MVC.No.6990/2010, were proceeding towards Srinagar of Palamner Town from A.K.Street, on the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-03-E-8924. They met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-34-F-5787 by its driver, as a result of which,

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

HC-KAR

claimant sustained grievous injuries. He had taken initial treatment at Government Hospital, Palamner and thereafter he took treatment at S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupathi. He had spent Rs.40,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses. With these reasons, claimant prayed for enhancement of compensation.

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2/insurer of the offending motorcycle denied the contents of the claim petition. It is stated that accident had taken place due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Therefore, respondents are not liable to pay the compensation and its liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the police. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

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

The Tribunal clubbed MVC.No.6990/2010, MVC.No.6991/2010 along with MVC.No.7152/2011 and

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

HC-KAR

recorded the common evidence. Claimants in all examined five witnesses as PW-1 to PW-5 and marked 20 documents from Exs.P-1 to P-20. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R-1 and R-2.

After hearing both parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the present claimant i.e., in MVC.No.6991/2011 as global compensation. The Tribunal also held that accident had taken place due to composite negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and 10% of the amount of compensation was deducted. Same is challenged in the present appeal.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant

submits that the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the income of the claimant. It has erred in not considering the injuries and the fractures sustained by the claimant and also no amount is awarded towards loss

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

HC-KAR

of amenities. With these reasons, he prayed for

enhancement of compensation.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer supports impugned judgement and submits that Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record and awarded just and reasonable compensation and it does not call for interference by this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

11. Following points arises for consideration:

(i) Whether the claimant is entitled for

enhancement of compensation?

(ii) What order?

12. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment at Para Nos.21 to 26, discussed regarding the case on hand and

awarded global compensation of Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal relied upon the wound certificate at Ex.P-15 to discard the evidence of doctor PW-5, as well as evidence of the claimant, who was examined as PW-3. Ex.P-15 is given by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital,

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

HC-KAR

Palamaner, Chittoor District. It indicates that claimant has sustained lacerated wound injury measuring 4 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm over occipital region of scalp surrounded by contusion. It is also noted by the doctor that the said injuries are simple in nature. Claimant has produced X-ray and it does not indicate any fracture sustained by him. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly not believed the evidence of PW-5 that claimant had sustained fracture of ulna.

13. Considering the contentions of the claimant and also materials on record, this Court felt that the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in total the claimant is entitled for global compensation of Rs.35,000/-.

14. As per the records, the claimant was a pillion rider. The composite negligence is on the rider of the motorcycle, as well as driver of the lorry. The claimant

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

HC-KAR

had not contributed anything in causing the accident in question. Therefore, deduction of 10% of the compensation amount is not permissible. The Tribunal has erred in deducting 10% of the compensation amount on the ground that due to contributory negligence of rider of the motorcycle, the accident had taken place. However, the claimant had not contributed for the same. Hence, the award of the Tribunal needs to be modified.

15. For the aforesaid discussions, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.

In MFA.No.9223/2013 :

The deceased Ashok was the rider of the motorcycle. Due to the accident in question, he sustained fracture of right femur and fracture of mandible. He was treated in CMC Hospital, Vellore as an inpatient from 24.05.2010 to 27.05.2010. It is stated that he underwent surgery and spent huge amount towards medical expenses. During the pendency of the petition, he died

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

HC-KAR

due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. For

these reasons, the appellants prayed to award the compensation.

17. After hearing the learned counsel for both side,

following questions arises for consideration:

(i) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation?

(ii) What order?

18. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment at

para-20, observed that the said Ashok died due to

consumption of poison. Ex.P-11 reveals the said fact. Therefore, the death was not due to the injuries sustained

by him in the accident. On the basis of said observation, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the claim petition.

19. Claimants have produced the documents to show

that deceased had sustained closed fracture of shaft of

right femur and fracture of mandible. He was admitted as an inpatient and took treatment. He spent amount

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

HC-KAR

towards medical expenses, for which he had produced the receipts given by the hospital, as well as medical stores at Ex.P-14 - total amount of the said bills is Rs.37,742/-, which is not disputed. Deceased was a resident of Bengaluru. The accident took place at Palamner of Chittoor District in Tamilnadu State and was admitted in the hospital at Vellore, as such, someone must have attended him while he was undergoing treatment as inpatient. Deceased might be on special diet and for follow-up treatment, he might have visited the said hospital and spent the amount towards the same. Deceased or claimants are entitled for the said amounts spent towards medical expenses and incidental expenses. These facts were not at all considered by the Tribunal.

20. It is true that injured claimant died during the pendency of the claim petition and his legal heirs are not entitled for the compensation under other heads, but, they are entitled for reimbursement of the amount spent for treatment of the deceased as stated supra. In view of the

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

HC-KAR

said reasons, interference in the findings of the Tribunal is required.

21. For the aforesaid discussion, I answer point No.1

partly in the affirmative and award compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses of the deceased claimant. Tribunal held that accident occurred due to composite negligence of rider of the motorcycle. The said finding is proper. Deceased was rider of the motor cycle. And hence 10% of compensation is to be deducted towards his contribution for causing the accident. Claimants are entitled for 54,000/-.

2 2. Undisputedly, the respondent No.1 being the

owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are liable to pay the said amount.

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) MFA.No.9021/2013 and

MFA.No.9223/2013 are allowed in part.

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

HC-KAR

ii) The judgment and award dated 14^th July 2014, passed in MVC.No.6991/2010 and MVC.No.7152/2011, by the M.A.C.T., Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City (SCCH10), s tands modified.

iii) The claimant in *MVC .No.7152/2011 are entitled to enhancement of Rs. 15,000/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization.

iv) The order of the Tribunal that claimant is entitled for only 90% of the compensation is incorrect and is set aside. The claimant is entitled for entire amount of Rs.20,000/- +Rs.15,000/-= 35,000/- with interest.

iv) The claimant in *MVC .No.6991/2010 is entitled for compensation of Rs.54,000/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

v) The Respondent No.2 insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award.

*Corrected vide court order dated 10.07.2025

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:19061 MFA No. 9021 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013

HC-KAR

vi) The accident had taken place in the year 2010 and the amount of compensation is meagre. Therefore, entire amount of compensation is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant in the respective claim petitions, on proper identification.

vii) Draw award accordingly.

Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.

Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

bk List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26