Sri. Sattar Mujahid Khan S Vs Royal Sundaram All Ins Co. Ltd.

SRI. SATTAR MUJAHID KHAN S., S/O. JABBAR KHAN S., AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 390, WARD NO.20, OPPOSITE TO GOVT SCHOOL, MOHAMMEDIYA NAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.

¶16

(BY SRI. PRAKASH M H., ADVOCATE)

¶17

…APPELLANT

¶18

AND:

¶19

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALL INS CO LTD NO.30, 3^RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTER, RAJARAM MOHANROY ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 027. REP BY ITS MANAGER.

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SRI. KURUPATI VISHNU VARDHAN, S/O RAVINDRA NAIDU, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT NO.16/1085-2, NANDALAPADU, TADIPATRI, ANANTHPUR DIST - 515 001. ANDRAPRADESH STATE.

¶23

SRI. AFSUR KHAN S/O LATE RAHAMATH KHAN AGE: MAJOR, RA/T NO.9, TIPPUNAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANGARA DIST - 562 117.

¶24

UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., NO.9, 5^TH AND 6^TH FLOORS, HUDSON CIRCLE, KRUSHIBHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP BY ITS MANAGER.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPARTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R4, SMT. NAZIMA TASNEEM, ADVOCATE FOR R3, VIDE ORDER DATED:29.11.2024 NOTICE FOR R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1857/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND A.C.M.M., M.A.C.T., BENGALURU (SCCH-22), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶29

3 -

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

IN MFA NO. 5819/2022

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD) PRESENT ADDRESS: NO.30, 3^RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTER, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. REPRESENTED BY STATE HEAD-LEGAL

¶34

...APPELLANT

¶35

(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S SAMPRATHI.,ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

SRI. FAIROZ KHAN, S/O GULAB KHAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.23, 1^ST CROSS, TIPPU NAGARA, WARD NO.16, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,

¶38

SRI. KURUPATI VISHNU VARDHAN, S/O RAVINDRA NAIDU, MAJOR IN AGE, NO.16/1085-2, NANDALAPADU, TADIPARTI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

¶39

SRI. AFSUR KHAN, S/O. LATE RAHAMATH KHAN, MAJOR IN AGE, NO.9, TIPPU NAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO.9, 5^TH AND 6^TH FLOORS, KRUSHIBHAVANAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶43

...RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI. PRAKASH M H., ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED:18.08.2023 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICENT, SRI. M.S. MUKURRAM, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶45

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1856/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, SCCH-22, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.12,95,820/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT IN THE TRIBUNAL.

¶46

IN MFA NO. 5830/2022

¶47

BETWEEN:

¶48

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD) PRESENT ADDRESS: NO.30, 3^RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTER, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. REPRESENTED BY STATE HEAD-LEGAL

¶49

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S. SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE)

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

AND:

¶53

SRI. SATTAR MUJAHID KHAN. S., S/O JABBAR KHAN S., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO 390, WARD NO 20, OPPOSITE TO GOVT. SCHOOL, MOHAMMEDIYA NAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶54

SRI. KURUPATI VISHNU VARDHAN, S/O RAVINDRA NAIDU, MAJOR IN AGE, NO.16/1085-2, NANDALAPADU, TADIPARTI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

¶55

SRI. AFSUR KHAN, S/O. LATE RAHAMATH KHAN, MAJOR IN AGE, NO.9, TIPPU NAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶56

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO.9, 5^TH AND 6^TH FLOORS, KRUSHIBHAVANAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶57

...RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE, VIDE ORDER DATED:29.11.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, SRI. M.S. MUKARRAM, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶59

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1857/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, BENGALURU, (SCCH-22), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.51,55,681/WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT.

¶62

THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶63

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶64

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶65

These three appeals under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by Claimant in M.V.C No.1857/2018 and other two by Insurer in both M.V.C No.1856/2018 and M.V.C No.1857/2018, calling in question the Common Judgment and Award dated 17.03.2022 passed by the XX Addl. Small Causes Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-22) (for short 'the Tribunal').

¶66

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

The claimant in M.V.C.No.1857/2018 is in

¶69

appeal M.F.A No.7623/2022 seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas the appeals by Insurer in M.F.A No.5830/2022 and M.F.A No.5819/2022 are on the contributory negligence.

¶70

Heard, Sri.Prakash.M.H., learned counsel appearing for the Claimant, Sri.Ravi S.Samprathi., learned counsel appearing for M/s.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

¶71

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶72

In MFA Nos.5819/2022 and 5830/2022

¶73

Learned counsel Sri.Ravi S.Samprathi., with all vehemence submits that as per the Police records and the spot sketch, the driver of the Car hit against the parked Lorry in the highway. The parked lorry was observing all the parking indicators and parked on the edge of the road. The accident place is a highway, there is no care and

¶74

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

caution taken by the driver of the car while driving on the highway and it is the driver of the Car who is solely responsible for the accident. The Tribunal while answering Issue No.1 in both claim petitions, answered the same in affirmative stating the Lorry was parked in BangaloreHuderabad B.T road without any indicators or signals and without taking any precautionary measurers in a negligent manner and the alleged accident occurred in the midnight at 2:00 am. In that view of the matter, fastened entire liability on the Insurer of the Lorry. In view of the accident caused with a stationed/parked Lorry, the Tribunal ought to have considered the contributory negligence on the

¶77

driver of the Car who ought to have been more circumspect and cautious while driving the Car. The accident has occurred in the night at 2:00 am, obviously the accident has occurred may be for other reasons

¶78

attributable to the driver of the Car. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and especially

¶79

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

the spot sketch and sought to fasten the liability at 70%

¶82

on the driver of the Car and 30% on the Lorry.

¶83

To buttress his argument, learned counsel has relied on the Judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in MFA 1580/2016 C/w. MFA Crob.104/2018 disposed of on 22.08.2025, wherein the coordinate bench of this Court considering the spot sketch and other

¶84

relevant documents of the Police record produced by the parties before the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the complaint was registered against both the driver of the Canter and rider of the motorcycle and considering the Ex.P.2 Spot Sketch in the said case and the fact that canter was parked almost on the middle of the road without any parking light, considering the principle of resipso-loquitor, fastened liability of 70% on Canter and 30% on the rider of the motorcycle. With this, learned counsel

¶85

for the Insurer sought to allow the appeals and fasten the liability on the driver of the Car who is responsible for the accident.

¶86

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Refuting the submissions, counsel

¶89

Sri.Prakash.M.H., submits that the Tribunal while

¶90

answering Issue No.1 has considered the fact that FIR was lodged against the driver of the Lorry and the police after investigation, filed charge sheet only against the driver of

¶91

the Lorry as the lorry was parked in the highway i.e., Bangalore-Hyderabad B.T road without any indicators or signals and without taking any precautionary measurers in a negligent manner and the accident occurred in the midnight at 2:00 am. In this circumstance, the Tribunal rightly comes to a conclusion that the entire fault is on the driver of the Lorry and sought to dismiss the appeals.

¶92

Having considered the rival submissions, we

¶93

have perused the police record as well as spot sketch. It is clear that the Lorry was parked on the left side of the road. The road wherein the accident occurred is a State highway and the time of the accident was 02:00 am. There may be perhaps all chances of the driver of the Car while driving the same may have caused the accident

¶94

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

without noticing the parked Lorry in a sleepiness/ drowsiness, which cannot be ruled out. In view of the Judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court supra, wherein on the doctrine of res-ipso-loquitor fastened the liability of contributory negligence. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that if the liability saddled is modified to the extent of 70% on the driver of the Lorry and 30% on the driver of the Car, the same would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, both the appeals by the Insurer are allowed in part , making both Insurer of Lorry and Car liable to pay the compensation in the ratio of 70:30, i.e., 70% on the Insurer of the Lorry and 30% on the Insurer of the Car.

¶97

In MFA No.7623/2022

¶98

The claimant in MFA No.1857/2018 is in appeal, seeking enhancement of quantum. Sri.Prakash.M.H., learned counsel with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal having held that the disability is 100% placing reliance on the evidence of the doctor, however committed

¶99

12 -

¶100

NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

serious error in taking the average of income tax returns and considered the amount of Rs.2,13,217/- and after dividing it by 12 months, considered income at Rs.17,740/- per month and added 40%. As per the last Income Tax Return filed by the claimant, the taxable income shown was Rs.3,50,000/- and the same ought to have been considered. Further, he submits that in view of 100% disability, he was required to be taken care at least by an attendant throughout his life. This has not been considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. So also he submits that the compensation awarded under other heads are all negligible and requires reconsideration. With this, he sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶103

Refuting the submissions, Sri.Ravi

¶104

S.Samprathi., with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal considered the income at the rate of Rs.17,740/and added 40% and awarded 100% income towards loss of future income and Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and

¶105

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

sufferings, Rs.4,35,281/- towards medical expenses and awarded appropriate compensation under all other heads, which is just and proper and does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶108

Having heard the rival submissions, perused the entire appeal paper as well as Trial Court record.

¶109

As per the last Income Tax Return, the taxable income stated therein is Rs.3,50,000/-. In view of the income taken in the last ITR, the same is to be considered and 25% is to be added. The age of the claimant is within 45 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 14 and the same has been considered by the Tribunal. Since the claimant suffered 100% disability and crippled of his day to day affairs and would require service of an attendant throughout his life, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in KAJAL VS. JAGDISH CHAND reported in

¶110

AIR 2020 SC 776 , the same is required to be awarded along with the multiplier applicable to the claimant. In

¶111

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

view of the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires reconsideration. Further, in view of the fact that the claimant's weakness in both limbs with lower bilateral weakness and is suffering from paraplegia due to fracture of L2-L3 and D2 Vertebra, he requires constant medical expenses as he is now confined to bed and he may develop bed sores. In that view of the matter, future medical expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- is on the down side and it requires enhancement. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to reassess the compensation which is as follows:

¶114

Sl. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs.	By this Court In Rs.
1.	Pain and Sufferings	2,00,000-00	2,00,000-00
2.	Medical expenses	4,35,281-00	4,35,281-00
3.	Food and nourishment and attendant charges	55,000-00	75,000-00
4.	Transportation charges	40,000-00	40,000-00
5.	Loss of future income due to permanent disability	37,25,400-00	61,25,000-00 (3,50,000+25% X 14)
6.	Loss of amenities	5,00,000-00	5,00,000-00
7.	Future medical expenses	2,00,000-00	4,00,000-00 (2,00,000 + 2,00,000)
	TOTAL	51,55,681-00	77,75,281-00

¶115

15 -

¶116

NC: 2026:KHC:15158-DB MFA No. 7623 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 5819 of 2022 MFA No. 5830 of 2022

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for re-assessed

¶119

compensation of Rs.77,75,281/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the rate of petition till realization.

¶120

This Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶121

ORDER

¶122

(i) The appeals filed by Insurer in MFA Nos.5819/2022 and 5830/2022 are allowed in part . Both Insurer of Lorry and Car are directed to pay the compensation in the ratio of 70:30, i.e., 70% on the Insurer of the Lorry and 30% on the Insurer of the Car within six weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶123

(ii) The appeal filed by Claimant in MFA No.7623/2022 is allowed in part . The claimant is entitled for re-assessed compensation of Rs.77,75,281/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

¶124