Partly allowed

Smt Shalini @ Jayanthi v. Mahesh P

Karnataka HC25 Apr 2026MFA/8217/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident compensation appeal: pillion rider injured in collision between motorcycle and Bolero goods vehicle. Court held 30% contributory negligence on motorcyclist, 70% on goods vehicle driver, and enhanced compensation using KSLSA-notified income of Rs.8,500 per month for 2014.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.11,60,000 with 6% interest; liability fixed 70% insurer / 30% motorcycle rider; insurer to pay entire amount with recovery liberty.

Smt Shalini @ Jayanthi Vs Mahesh P — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8217 OF 2015(MV-I)

¶10

C/W

¶11

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.266 OF 2016(MV-I)

¶12

IN MFA No. 8217/2015

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

SMT. SHALINI @ JAYANTHI

¶15

W/O SRIKANTH

¶16

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT IMMADIHALLI WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 066.

¶18

(BY SRI. M. BABU., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

…APPELLANT

¶21

MAHESH P

¶22

S/O PILLAPPA, MAJOR NO. 126, INDIRA NAGAR ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DIST-562 106.

¶23

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER R.O, NO. 2-B, UNITY BUILDING

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ANNEXE MISSION ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. C. R. RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O/DT. 25.04.2026 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶30

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3008/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & MACT (SCCH-09), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶31

IN MFA NO. 266/2016

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. UNITY BUILDINGS ANNEXE BANGALORE-27, THROUGH THIRD PARTY APPEAL HUB M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.

¶34

...APPELLANT

¶35

(BY SRI. C. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

SMT. SHALINI @ JAYANTHI W/O SRIKANTH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT IMMADI HALLI WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 066.

¶38

MAHESH P S/O PILLAPPA MAJOR IN AGE

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

NO.126, INDIRANAGAR ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TQ. BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 107.

¶43

...RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI. M. BABU., ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O/DT. 16.03.2018 SERVICE FO NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶45

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED17.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3008/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & 26TH ACMM, BENGALURU, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.10,71,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶46

THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶48

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶49

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

¶50

These two appeals being MFA No.8217/2015 by the

¶51

claimant and MFA No.266/2016 by the Insurer, calling in question the Judgment and Award dated 17.08.2015 in MVC No.3008/2014 passed by the Judge, Court of Small

¶52

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Causes & XXVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru¹ (SCCH-09).

¶55

The Tribunal under the impugned Judgment and award, granted compensation of Rs.10,71,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Claimant is in appeal on quantum and the Insurer is in appeal on contributory negligence.

¶56

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

¶57

The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, injury sustained by Smt.Shalini @ Jayanthi and liability to pay the compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute is with respect to quantum by the claimant and contributory negligence by the Insurer.

¶58

The facts germane to file this appeal are as under:

¶59

1 for short, 'the Tribunal'

¶60

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

In an accident occurred on 05.03.2014 at about 3:00

¶63

pm, while the claimant was proceeding on the motorcycle as a pillion, a Bolero Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-51 B- 6956 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the claimant who was a pillion fell on the road and suffered severe injuries, resulting in disability. Accordingly, she filed Claim Petition seeking compensation.

¶64

Respondent No.1 - owner of the Bolero Goods vehicle though served, remained unrepresented and placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 - Insurer appeared

¶65

before the Tribunal and filed statement of objections. Besides denying the claim petition averments, the Insurer has taken a defence that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider, so also disputed the driving license of the driver of the Bolero Goods Vehicle and the permit of the said vehicle and further contended that in view of violation of the policy

¶66

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

condition, the Insurer is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶69

The Tribunal having considered the rival submissions, framed in all three issues. Issue No.1 is with respect to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Bolero Goods Vehicle. The Tribunal answered the said issue in the Affirmative holding that it is the driver of the Bolero Goods Vehicle who is negligent in driving the vehicle and causing the accident and proceeded to award compensation of Rs.10,71,000/- considering the income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- per month and 25% disability,

¶70

under various heads with interest @ 6% per annum. It is this Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is called in question in these appeals by the Claimant as well as the Insurer.

¶71

Heard, Sri.M.Babu, learned counsel appearing

¶72

for the claimant and Sri.C.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer.

¶73

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Sri.C.R.Ravishankar, with all vehemence relying on the Spot Mahazar (Ex.P2) submits that the accident had occurred in the middle of the road. The rider of the motorcycle should have been more circumspect and cautious while riding the motorcycle. In that view of the matter, he has contributed to the accident and the Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and sought to allow the appeal filed by the Insurer.

¶76

Per contra, Sri.Babu, with all vehemence

¶77

submits that there is nothing forthcoming in the spot mahazar as to indicate that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent. Even there is nothing stated in the spot mahazar that the accident had occurred in the middle of the road. Further the Insurer has not taken any pain to examine any independent witness to substantiate its claim regarding the manner of accident now urged before the Court. In that view of the matter, the appeal by the Insurer on the ground of contributory negligence is liable to be dismissed.

¶78

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

So far as enhancement is concerned, learned

¶81

counsel submits that the Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/-. Admittedly, the accident has occurred in 2014 and as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for settlement of disputes before the Lok-Adalat, the income is Rs.8,500/- per month for the year 2014 and the same may kindly be considered while considering the loss of future income. A feeble attempt has been made by learned counsel to consider the disability at more than 25% i.e., at 30%.

¶82

Having heard the rival submissions, we have perused both the appeal paper as well as the Trial Court record.

¶83

The following points would arise for

¶84

consideration:

¶85

(1) Whether the Insurer has made out any case to fasten contributory negligence on the rider of the motorcycle?

¶86

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

(2) Whether the Claimant has made out any case for enhancement of compensation?

¶90

Our answer to both the points for consideration

¶91

is Partly in the Affirmative , for the following:

¶92

REASONS

¶93

POINT NO.1 : The entire argument of

¶94

Sri.C.R.Ravishankar is on the spot mahazar. A perusal of

¶95

the spot mahazar clearly shows that there is nothing to indicate that the accident has occurred in the middle of the road. What is stated in the mahazar is, white paint found

¶96

in the middle of the road, perhaps the same may be the dividing line between the road. Neither the motorcycle nor the Bolero Goods Vehicle were on the spot. The Bolero Goods vehicle was found as per the mahazar report on the extreme edge of the Northern side and the motorcycle was found on the extreme edge of the Southern side. The road

¶97

is stated to be running East to West. If that is to be considered, both the vehicles are found on the extreme left side of their direction. In that view of the matter, it

¶98

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

becomes very hard for this Court to consider the manner

¶101

in which the accident had occurred according to the argument of Sri.C.R.Ravishankar. However, considering the fact that both the vehicles are damaged extensively, in

¶102

the absence of any contra evidence and taking into consideration the police records and the damage sustained to both the vehicles, on the principle of res-ipso-loquitor , we hold that rider of the motorcycle has contributed 30% and the driver of the Bolero Goods Vehicle has contributed 70% to the accident. However, the fact remains that the claimant was a Pillion. It is settled position of law that whenever there is an accident between two vehicles, the claimant can chose to file petition against any of the vehicle. If anything found against another vehicle, the Insurer of the Vehicle against whom the claim petition is filed can pay the entire amount and recover the same

¶103

either from the Insurer of the opponent vehicle or in the event if there is any dispute regarding coverage of insurance, then from the insured of the said vehicle. In

¶104

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

that view of the matter, we are answering Point No.1

¶107

Partly in the Affirmative . However, in view of the involvement of two vehicle, we are directing the Insurer to pay the entire compensation with liberty to recover 30% in view of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, either from the Insurer of the motorcycle or from the insured.

¶108

POINT NO.2: So far as enhancement is

¶109

concerned, we find force in the argument of Sri.Babu. Admittedly, the accident happened in 2014. As per the chart supra, the income fixed for the year 2014 is Rs.8,500/-. After going through the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, we are satisfied with the compensation awarded under other heads, except under the head loss of future income and loss of income during laid-up period in view of taking higher income. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded under both the head requires re-determination. Accordingly, we

¶110

12 -

¶111

NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

answer the point for consideration in favor of claimant,

¶114

Partly in the Affirmative .

¶115

In view of taking higher income, the

¶116

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under two heads stated supra requires re-determination, which is as follows:

¶117

Sl. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs.	By this Court In Rs.
1.	Pain and sufferings	60,000-00	60,000-00
2.	Attendant charges, nutritious expenses & transportation charges	8,000-00	8,000-00
3.	Medical expenses	5,00,000-00	5,00,000-00
4.	Loss of future income due to permanent disability	3,78,000-00	4,59,000-00 (8,500 x 12 x 18 x 25%)
5.	Loss of income during laid up period	35,000-00	42,500-00 (8,500 x 5)
6.	Loss of future amenities and happiness	40,000-00	40,000-00
7.	Future medical expenses	50,000-00	50,000-00
	TOTAL	10,71,000-00	11,59,500-00

¶118

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for redetermined compensation of Rs.11,59,500/- rounded off at Rs.11,60,000/- as against Rs.10,71,000/- awarded by

¶119

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

the Tribunal with interest @ 6% per annum from the date

¶122

of petition till realization.

¶123

For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

¶124

ORDER

¶125

i. Both the appeals are allowed in part .

¶126

ii. The Judgment and award dated 17.08.2015 in MVC No.3008/2014 passed by the Judge, Court of Small Causes & XXVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is modified. The liability of the Insurer is fastened at 70% and 30% on the rider of the motorcycle, as the rider of the motorcycle has contributed 30% negligence to the accident.

¶127

iii. The amount in deposit in the Insurer appeal shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith for disbursement.

¶128

iv. The claimant is entitled for re-determined compensation of Rs.11,60,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶129

14 -

¶130

NC: 2026:KHC:22889-DB MFA No. 8217 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2016

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

v. The Insurer of the Bolero Goods Vehicle shall deposit the entire re-determined compensation along with accrued interest stated supra before the concerned Tribunal, within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, with a liberty to recover 30% of the compensation either from the Insurer of the motorcycle or from the Insured.

¶133

vi. The order of disbursement of compensation is unaltered.

¶134

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶135

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶136

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt Shalini @ Jayanthi v. Mahesh P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shalini @ Jayanthi v. Mahesh P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Bharath Kumar Naidu Vs Sri Lokesh C T

Mrs. Lalitha Ramkumar Vs M/S. Himalaya Prime Assets Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. G S Paniraj, Vs Dr. v S Rajamma

Smt Biddanda Neelamma Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri. H.K.Sripada Shankar Vs the Commissioner

The United Indian Insurance Co. . Ltd. Vs Kum. Steffi Sarah Lincoln