Karnataka High Court
Ganga Singh vs Bagadram Purohit on 10 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5917
MFA No. 9072 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9072 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
GANGA SINGH,
S/O SRI. PARAS RAM JI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT #374, KILARI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 053.
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
AUWA,THE MARWAR JN. DISTRICT-PALI
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. V. SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BAGADRAM PUROHIT,
S/O SRI.HIRAGI PUROHIT, MAJOR,
R/AT NO.43, S N BAZZAR,
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA III MAIN, GANDHINAGAR,
PARVEEN BANGALORE-560 009.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
KARNATAKA
DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.2, KHENY BUILDING,
NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
P.B.NO.9555, BANGALORE - 560 009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 28.10.2024)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.07.2013 PASSED IN
MVC NO.2806/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5917
MFA No. 9072 of 2013
SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.K.V.Shyamprasad learned counsel for the appellant who appears physically before this Court. Also heard Smt.Harini Shivanand learned counsel for respondent No.2 who appears through video conference.
2. The claimant in MVC No.2806/2011 that stood pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru and was disposed of through order dated 02.07.2013 has preferred this appeal.
3. The challenge as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant is on two grounds. Firstly, regarding attribution of contributory negligence on part of the appellant to an extent of 10% for the occurrence of the accident. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5917 MFA No. 9072 of 2013 Secondly, that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is on lower side.
4. Arguing on first point, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Honda Activa vehicle which is involved in the accident. On the date of accident, while the appellant was crossing the road, the Honda Activa vehicle bearing registration No.KA 01 EF-8999, came at a high speed driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant due to which the appellant sustained injuries. Learned counsel submits that the appellant, by all the evidence produced established in clear terms that the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Honda Activa vehicle. Only because there was no zebra crossing indication at the place of accident, the Tribunal held that the appellant is also responsible for the accident to occur. Learned counsel states that such an observation is invalid.
5. On the other hand, the submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellant was crossing the road where there was no zebra crossing mark as -4- NC: 2025:KHC:5917 MFA No. 9072 of 2013 well as signal light. Two pleas were taken by respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, firstly regarding absence of zebra cross indication at the place of accident and secondly that the appellant was under state of intoxication when the accident occurred. The Tribunal in the impugned order at para 21, gave a clear finding that consumption of alcohol by the appellant and was under its influence at the time of accident is not proved. Said finding is well reasoned and therefore needs no interference.
6. It is not the case of the appellant that there was zebra crossing indication at the place of accident. However, merely because there was no such indication, it cannot be said that the appellant contributed for the accident to occur. Police who investigated the case did not mention anywhere that the appellant contributed for the accident to occur. Only because there was no zebra crossing indication at the place of accident, it cannot be said that the appellant contributed for the accident to occur. Respondent No.2 is under obligation to establish the alleged contributory negligence on part of the appellant. However, respondent no.2 failed to establish the plea taken. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal erred in -5- NC: 2025:KHC:5917 MFA No. 9072 of 2013 giving a finding that the appellant contributed for the accident to occur and the said contribution is to an extent of 10%.
7. Coming to the aspect of the amount that is awarded as compensation, the Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.1,66,500/- as compensation divided under following heads:
Sl Amount
Compensation
No. in Rs.
1 Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of income during the
treatment, attendant charges,
2 Rs. 5,000/-
diet, conveyance, and other
charges
3 Medical Expenses Rs. 91,500/-
4 Loss of amenities and comfort Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs.1,66,500/-
8. As per contents of Ex.P7-Wound Certificate, apart from head injury, the appellant also sustained grievous injury to his left leg. Even the injury sustained to the head is grievous in nature as per the content of Ex.P7 wound certificate. As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2, the appellant failed to establish the aspect of disability by examining either the Doctor Who treated him or any other expert. However, having considering the nature of injuries -6- NC: 2025:KHC:5917 MFA No. 9072 of 2013 sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken bed rest atleast for a period of four months. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- only under the head, loss of income during the treatment period, attendant charges, diet, conveyance and other charges. The said sum is grossly low. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that it would be wholly justifiable if the sum awarded as compensation is enhanced globally by Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, in the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The contributory negligence to an extent of 10% attributed on part of the appellant by the tribunal through the impugned order is set aside.
(iii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal , Bengaluru through orders in MVC No.2806/2011 dated 02.07.2013 is enhanced by Rs.50,000/-.
(iv) Respondent No.2 is at liability to pay entire sum that is awarded as compensation by the Tribunal through the impugned order as well as the enhanced sum i.e., Rs.50,000/-.-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:5917 MFA No. 9072 of 2013
(v) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
(vi) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(vii) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84