Sri Abhishek Shandilya Vs Sri Mallesh R

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:14542 MFA No. 8604 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8604 OF 2024 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI ABHISHEK SHANDILYA, S/O VEERENDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.98, MOHARDA ZONE, N-2B, DEEPA COLONY, BIRSANAGAR, NEAR MOHARDA PRIMARY SCHOOL, JANSHEDPUR, LUYABASA EAST, SINGHBHAM, JHARKHAN - 831 008.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.R.KIRAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI MALLESH R, S/O LATE RAJANNA B, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.310, 7TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, IST STAGE, PEENYA, BANGALORE - 560 058.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA V G, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1374/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 10,92,700/-WITH

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14542 MFA No. 8604 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CURRENT AND FUTURE INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. TO PETITIONER TOWARDS COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 20.09.2024 passed in MVC.No.1374/2021, by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru.

¶23

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶24

the appellant and learned counsel for respondent.

¶25

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 20.01.2020 and filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.10,92,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14542 MFA No. 8604 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the owner of the vehicle filed appeal and mainly contended that appellant was an engineering student in VII Semester of Electronics and Telecommunications in Symbiosis Institute of Technology, Pune. The respondent is a vegetable vendor. He and his wife came from Shidlaghatta and got down at Peenya Bus Stop near Banashankari Hotel. When they were crossing the road, the appellant dashed against them and they sustained multiple injuries. The appellant also sustained multiple injuries, including a head injury. He was admitted in the hospital for a period of two months and is still undergoing physiotherapy and psychotherapy. At the time of accident, the vehicle had no valid insurance. The wife of the respondent filed a complaint before the Peenya Traffic Police Station in Crime No.9/2020, registered under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC against the appellant.

¶29

The Tribunal erred in holding that accident occurred only due to the negligence of the appellant

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14542 MFA No. 8604 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

herein. The accident occurred on a National Highway. Ex.P.10 is the sketch, and per the sketch there is no bus stop and no Banashankari Hotel as claimed by the respondent. Respondent has not filed any documents to show that he got down from a government bus and was crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing. Perusal of the Ex.P.10 shows that the place of accident is in the middle of the National Highway, where there was no bus stop or signal light for pedestrians to cross. As such, there is no negligence on the part of the appellant, and the entire accident occurred due to the negligence of the respondent. The Tribunal granted an exorbitant amount. As per Ex.P.18, the respondent can walk independently. Therefore, it is requested to set aside the order.

¶33

The main argument of the learned counsel is that

¶34

there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner while crossing the road on National Highway. The manner of the accident shows that while the petitioner was crossing NH-4 near Peenya Bus Stop, the respondent

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14542 MFA No. 8604 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

negligently drove the motorcycle

¶38

No.MH-12-MN-0760 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which he sustained injures. At the time of the accident, he was aged 64 years. The owner of the vehicle stated that he had contested the case before the Court and that the Court ought to have taken into consideration the plea of contributory negligence.

¶39

The fact that the appellant is an engineering

¶40

student and has sustained multiple injuries is not a factor to be considered for arriving at the conclusion in this case.

¶41

Now it is necessary to consider whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was crossing the road on NH-4, and it is not the case of the appellant that there was any curve in the road and it is straight road. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that the claimant suddenly came onto the road cannot be accepted, the appellant ought to have seen that the claimant was crossing the road from a reasonable

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14542 MFA No. 8604 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

distance and avoided the accident, but he failed to do so.

¶45

It is not the case of appellant that respondent was crossing the road in drunken condition. Therefore, the argument of the appellant counsel that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant cannot be considered. The Tribunal rightly granted Rs.10,92,700/after considering all the aspects. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the amount granted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶46

Therefore, the appellant is directed to deposit

¶47

the entire compensation along with the interest accrued on

¶48

the same, within one month from the date of order.

¶49

On such deposit petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it.

¶50

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶51

KVR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Sri Abhishek Shandilya v. Sri Mallesh R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Abhishek Shandilya v. Sri Mallesh R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Saraswathamma, Vs Sri Kumar Singh M R

Jeevan D N Vs Dinesh K R

Adinarayana P N Vs Chandrashekar S

Smt Shama Vs Sri Srinivasa

Kum Yogana R Vs Sri Bellaiah B

Shri. Mukesh. G. M. Vs Rekha. M