Injured claimant appealed against motor accident compensation award saddling liability on vehicle owner due to invalid licence and expired fitness certificate. Court applied pay-and-recovery principle against insurer, enhanced notional income to Rs.9,500/month, reassessed compensation at Rs.4,96,450 with 10% contributory negligence deduction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8720/2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MAHISH SUDHINDRA ALIAS M. SUDHINDRA S/O VENKATACHAR .M AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8 SRI. MUKHYAPRANA 4TH CROSS, AIR VIEW COLONY KONENA AGRAHARA VIMANAPURA, BANGALORE - 560017.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KALYAN R, ADV.,)
AND:
NO.304, EWS KHB COLONY 2ND STAGE, 2ND MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560079.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADV., FOR R2 R1 SERVED)
HC-KAR
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3052/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the injured challenging the judgment and award dated 30.04.2018 passed in MVC.No.3052/2016 by the I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-11), (for short 'Tribunal').
appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in saddling the liability on the owner of the vehicle without directing the insurance company to pay the compensation and
HC-KAR
recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.6,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the award of the compensation by the Tribunal on all other heads is on the lower side and is required to be enhanced appropriately by considering oral and documentary evidence on record. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in attributing 10% as contributory negligence to the appellant solely on the ground that he attempted to cross the road without using a zebra crossing. Such a finding is required to be interfered in this appeal. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
HC-KAR
license and that the vehicle did not have a fitness certificate as on the date of the accident. It is submitted that the appellant was aged about 71 years at the time of the accident and has not produced any proof of income. Therefore, considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was fully justified in awarding just and fair compensation to the appellant, which does not call for any enhancement. It is further submitted that the appellant failed in his duty of care while crossing the road, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal and saddled the portion of the liability on him to the extent of 10%, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018
HC-KAR
this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference?"
HC-KAR
date of accident, the rider of the motorcycle did not have a valid and effective driving license and also the fitness certificate was not in force. Hence, the Tribunal ordered the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation. The Tribunal further recorded the finding that the appellant without exercising due care, crossed the road at a place where there was no zebra crossing and held that the appellant himself was negligent and had contributed to the accident to the extent of 10%.
paragraph No.14. Having regard to the place where the claimant was crossing the road, it is an admitted fact that there was no zebra crossing and the accident occurred at about 10.30 p.m. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the claimant himself was negligent and contributed to the accident to some extent. Considering the said aspect, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant contributed to the accident to the extent of 10%. The said
HC-KAR
finding does not call for any interference. The Tribunal further recorded the finding that the rider of the motorcycle did not have a valid and effective license and the vehicle involved in the accident did not possess a fitness certificate as on the date of the accident and proceeded to saddle the liability on the owner of the vehicle. It is to be noticed that the law on this aspect is well settled, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Swaran Singh and Others1 has held that, in cases of violation of the policy conditions, the insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. By applying the said principle of "pay and recovery", the impugned judgment and award to that extent is modified.
1 (2004) 3 SCC 297
HC-KAR
appellant has not produced any evidence to substantiate the income. Hence, his income is notionally assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month by placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA. Insofar as the disability is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the disability of the appellant at 15% and awarded compensation accordingly. By considering oral evidence of PW2 and other medical records, I do not find any error in such assessment. It is not in dispute that the claimant was aged about 71 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 5, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability is as under:
Rs.9,500 X 12 X 5 X 15% = Rs.85,500/-.
under the head of medical expenses remains unaltered. It is to be noticed that the Tribunal has erred in awarding lesser compensation under all other heads. Hence, for the
NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018
HC-KAR
aforementioned reasons the compensation is reassessed
as under:
| HEADS | AMOUNT (in Rs.) |
|---|---|
| Pain & suffering | 40,000 |
| Loss of amenities | 30,000 |
| Medical expenses | 2,92,450 |
| Loss of income during treatment period (Rs.9500 X 3) |
28,500 |
| Loss of future income due to disability | 85,500 |
| Attendant charges, food and extra nourishing & conveyance etc. |
20,000 |
| Total | 4,96,450 |
Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to 90%
of the total compensation ( Rs. 4,96,450 /- ) i.e., Rs.4,46,805/- as against Rs.3,94,050/- awarded by the Tribunal.
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal stands allowed in part .
the Tribunal is modified to an extent that
NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018
HC-KAR
the appellant-claimant would be entitled
to 90% of total compensation (Rs.4,96,450/-) i.e., Rs.4,46,805/- as against Rs.3,94,050/- awarded by the Tribunal.
accordance with law.
NC: 2026:KHC:12796 M.F.A. No.8720/2018
HC-KAR
f) Insofar as finding with regard to the
contributory negligence by the Tribunal
is upheld.
g) The apportionment, deposit and
disbursement shall be made as per award of the Tribunal.
h) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE
ABK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's judgment and award on liability and quantum of compensation calls for interference?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Swaran Singh and OthersApplied¶9
(2004) 3 SCC 297 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahish Sudhindra alias M. Sudhindra
Umashankar
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
