Mr. Yadav @ Yadava Devadiga v. Mr. Shreedhara Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8382 OF 2019(MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. YADAV @ YADAVA DEVADIGA, S/O ANTHAPPA DEVADIGA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT 102, KATTEYANGADI HOUSE, PALLI KARKALA, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, PIN-574 104 …APPELLANT (BY MS. POOJA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1MR. SHREEDHARA GOWDA S/O CHANDADAPPA GOWDA ADULT, R/AT PARPAJE HOUSE, BARIMARU VILLAGE & POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K., PIN-574 219.

¶2BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PRABHU BUILDING, OPP ARUNA TALKIES MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR, D.K. ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX, KODIALBAIL by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:41531 MFA(No.(8382(of(2019 CNR:(KAHC010444332019 MANGALURU.,D.K., PIN-575,001., …RESPONDENTS, (SRI.,S.,SRISHAILA,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2;, R1-SERVED,AND,UNREPRESENTED), THIS,MFA, FILED, U/S, 173(1), OF, MV, ACT, AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED, 22.07.2019, PASSED, IN,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, MVC, NO.1609/2017, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, I, ADDITIONAL, DISTRICT, JUDGE, AND, MACT-II,, MANGALURU, (DK),, , 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,DR.,JUSTICE,CHILLAKUR,SUMALATHA ORAL(JUDGMENT Heard, Ms.Pooja,, who, appears, before, this, Court, physically, and, represents, Sri.Ravishankar, Shastry.G, learned, counsel, on, record, for, the, appellant, as, well, as, Sri.S.Srishaila,who,appears,through,video,conference,and, represents,respondent,No.2.,,

2., Challenge, in, this, appeal, is, the, order, that, is, rendered, by, the, II, Additional, Motor, Accident, Claims,

Tribunal, Mangaluru in MVC No.1609/2017 dated

22.07.2019. This is a claimant's appeal.

¶3The claimant, projecting that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2017 and the accident solely occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19 EM-9705 filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in total. Tribunal gave finding to the effect that, appellant also contributed for the accident to occur and his contribution is 25%. The Tribunal held that total compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive is Rs.3,34,150/- and respondents are under liability to pay 75% of the same, which comes to Rs.2,50,613/-. Aggrieved by the findings given, this appeal is filed.

¶4Arguing on the aspect of contributory negligence, learned counsel who represents the appellant submits that the appellant was proceeding on the left side

of mud road at the relevant time. The motorcyclist drove the motorcycle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant, who was proceeding on extreme left side of the road. Thus, appellant sustained injuries. Learned counsel contends that there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of the appellant and entire negligence was on part of the rider of the motorcycle. But without appreciating the evidence brought on record in proper way, Tribunal held that appellant contributed for the accident to occur.

¶5On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that appellant was proceeding by walk in the middle 1/3rd of the road, due to which he was hit by the motorcycle. Tribunal discussed about the aspect of negligence and finally held that the appellant also contributed for the accident to occur and such contribution is 25%. Appellant produced and relied upon Ex.P1 copy of FIR, Ex.P2 copy of Complaint, Ex.P4 copy of Spot Mahazar,

Ex.P5 copy of Spot Sketch, Ex.P7 copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and Ex.P10 copy of Charge Sheet. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to produce any evidence in support of their version regarding the contributory negligence on part of the appellant. There is no material on record to show that the appellant was proceeding on middle 1/3rd of the road as contented by learned counsel for respondent No.2. The evidence produced, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, reveals that the appellant was proceeding on the extreme edge of the road. Such being the case, it cannot be held that the appellant contributed for the accident to occur. Therefore, this Court is of the view that contributory negligence attributed on part of the appellant is required to be set aside.

¶6Coming to quantum, though appellant contended that he was working as cook by the date of accident, except producing Ex.P13 Salary Certificate, no other evidence was produced by him to establish his

occupation as on the date of accident. Therefore, Tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/- per month. However, considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2017 and for the relevant period, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month for settlement of claims, this Court considers desirable to take the notional income of the appellant at Rs.11,000/- per month.

¶7Coming to the aspect of disability, Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 12%. The submission that is made by learned counsel who represents respondent No.2 is that PW2 assessed the disability as 45% in respect of left lower limb and therefore, the disability in respect of whole body can be taken 1/3rd of it i.e., 15%. Having considered the submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 himself, this Court considers desirable to take the

disability in respect of whole body as 15%. Thus, having taken the notional income of the appellant as Rs.11,000/- per month, applying appropriate multiplier '14' and the disability in respect of whole body as 15%, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards loss of future earnings comes to Rs.2,77,200/- (11,000 x 12 x 14 x 15%). Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.2,01,600/- only towards loss of future earnings. However, it is clear that appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,77,200/- towards loss of future earnings. Thus, additional sum which appellant is entitled to receive under the head 'loss of future earnings' comes to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.2,77,200 - Rs.2,01,600). Compensation granted by the Tribunal under all other heads is justifiable. Thus, total sum which appellant is entitled to receive as compensation is Rs.4,09,750/- (Rs.3,34,150+Rs.75,600). Therefore, appeal is disposed of with the following:

ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Contributory negligence attributed on the part of the appellant by the Court of II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru through orders in MVC No.1609/2017 dated

22.07.2019, is set aside. iii. Compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,34,150/- to Rs.4,09,750/-. iv. Compensation granted shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. v. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay appellant a sum of Rs.4,09,750/- as compensation. vi. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

vii. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27