Mr Sukumara Vs Mr Safiq Sahil

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:15010 MFA No. 9505 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9505 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SUKUMARA S/O LATE RAGHU BANGERA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT 2-304/4/5/1, BAGAMBILA ROAD NEAR SATYNARAYANA BAJANA MANDIRA BAGAMBILA, KOTEKAR VILLAGE NITHYANANDA NAGARA, MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT - 575 008

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MR. SAFIQ SAHIL Digitally S/O HAMEED signed by ADULT, R/AT 2-239/1 AMBIKA H B BARUV RUMBODY Location: KONAJE POST & VILLAGE High Court of Karnataka MANGALURU TALUK & DISTRICT - 575 018

¶13

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR D.NO.2-6/26 (13), THOKKUTTU ULLAL MANGALURU TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 575 012

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(R-1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; BY SRI K.N. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:15010 MFA No. 9505 of 2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY/SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13-06-2018 IN MVC No.25/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MACT-II, MANGALURU AND CLAIM PETITION BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

(CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is by the claimant/injured challenging the

¶24

judgment and award dated 13.06.2018 passed in M.V.C. No.25/2017 by I Additional District Judge and II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, D.K.Mangaluru (for short, 'Tribunal').

¶25

2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with

¶26

consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

Ms. Pooja Parvathi.U, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed

¶28

a grave error in recording the finding that the appellant/injured was negligent in contributing to the

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15010 MFA No. 9505 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

accident to the extent of 50% by ignoring his evidence. It

¶32

is submitted that the appellant had put the indicators on, to take his vehicle to the left. At that time, the rider of the offending motorcycle drove his motorcycle in a rash and

¶33

negligent manner and dashed the appellant. It is submitted that the jurisdictional police filed charge sheet against the rider of the offending motorcycle. Hence, recording any finding with regard to contributing evidence is impermissible. Hence, she seeks to modify the same. It

¶34

is submitted that the Tribunal rejected the compensation under the Head of Medical Reimbursement on the ground that the appellant got reimbursement from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. However, out of Rs.42,700/-, the appellant got reimbursement to the extent of Rs.21,000/and balance amount of Rs.21,700 is required to be paid. It is submitted that no compensation is awarded under the

¶35

Head of Loss of Future Income due to disability and award of compensation on all other Heads. Hence, she seeks to

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15010 MFA No. 9505 of 2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

enhance the same appropriately by considering the evidence on record.

¶39

Per contra Sri K.N. Srinivasa, the learned

¶40

counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that both the riders of the motorcycle were negligent and accident has occurred in the middle of the road which can be seen from Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, spot mahazar and spot sketch of the record. Hence, the finding of contributory negligence needs no interference. It is submitted that the appellant continued his employment after the accident. Hence, there cannot be any compensation under the Head of Loss of Income due to disability and award of compensation on all other Heads is just and fair and does not call for any interference.

¶41

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶42

counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15010 MFA No. 9505 of 2018

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶46

consideration in this appeal is:

¶47

"Whether the impugned judgment and

¶48

award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?"

¶49

The aforesaid point is answered in affirmative for the following reasons:

¶50

The contention of the appellant with regard to contributory negligence is that the appellant/injured had showed the indicator as he intended to take left turn and

¶51

at that time the rider of the offending vehicle dashed his motor cycle. Hence, finding with regard to contributory negligence needs modification.

¶52

It is to be noticed that police after investigation filed charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal mainly relied on Ex.P4 and Ex.P5,

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:15010 MFA No. 9505 of 2018

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Spot Mahazaar and Spot Sketch which clearly indicates that the width of the road was 14 feet and in the middle of the road, accident has occurred.

¶57

The Tribunal, considering the testimony of PW1 and other material available on record, recorded the finding with regard to the contributory negligence. It is to be noticed that the appellant has not examined any independent witness to corroborate his statement that he

¶58

intended to take left turn and hence, he was in the middle of the road. In absence of independent evidence on record, this Court cannot believe the self-serving statement of the appellant. Hence, the finding recorded by

¶59

the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence is affirmed. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence that the appellant continued his employment after accident and hence, he is not entitled to compensation under the Head of Loss and Income due to disability.

¶60

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15010 MFA No. 9505 of 2018

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

It is to be noticed that the appellant got reimbursement of medical bills to the extent of Rs.21,000/-. Hence, the appellant is entitled to reimbursement of balance amount bill of Rs.21,700/-, out of total bill of Rs.42,700/-. It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation under all Heads, except Loss of Income during the laid of period.

¶63

Considering the treatment provided to the

¶64

appellant as in-patient and post discharge, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be met if Rs.10,000/- compensation is awarded under the said Head.

¶65

For the aforementioned reasons, I have

¶66

proceeded to pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

a) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶69

b) The impugned judgment and award dated 13.06.2018 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.25/2017 is modified to the extent that

¶70

8 -

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:15010 MFA No. 9505 of 2018

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

the appellant is entitled to additional

¶74

compensation of Rs.21,700/- + Rs.10,000/=Rs.31,700/-.

¶75

c) The enhanced compensation shall carry

¶76

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

¶77

d) Respondent No.2 shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶78

e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit

¶79

and release shall remain unaltered.

¶80

f) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶81

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶82

KPS

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Mr Sukumara v. Mr Safiq Sahil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sukumara v. Mr Safiq Sahil

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.Theerthabhagya Vs Smt.Sanjana J

Smt Ningamma Vs Shri Nagaraju

Sri.Basava Aradhya Vs Sri.Channabasavadevaru

Sri. Renuka Kumar. S Vs Sri. Murthy. v

Sri Mahesha Vs Smt Lalitha

Srinivasa Vs Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.