Pedestrians Jumping Road Medians Suffer Contributory Negligence: Karnataka HC

Jumping over a permanent center median to cross a busy double road constitutes reckless behavior, heavily informing the assessment of contributory negligence in motor accident claims. The High Court of Karnataka has ruled that while drivers must maintain vigilance, pedestrians voluntarily exposing themselves to fast-moving traffic cannot claim full compensation.

A Division Bench comprising Justice R Devdas and Dr. Justice K.Manmadha Rao partially allowed an appeal by the insurer, reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal after attributing 20% contributory negligence to the deceased pedestrian.

Court's Analysis on Negligence and Legal Principles

The physical evidence corroborated by the complaint established that the deceased jumped over the center median where no pedestrian crossing was designated. While absolute application of Volenti Non Fit Injuria rarely operates as a complete defense in motor accident welfare legislations, the principle heavily informs the assessment of contributory negligence.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A pedestrian crossing a high-speed double road by jumping over a median divider acts in utter disregard for personal safety. Concurrently, the driver of an Auto Rickshaw cannot be absolved of all liability; drivers are expected to maintain a vigilant lookout and control their speed, especially in urban/semi-urban stretches. Accordingly, contributory negligence of 20% is attributed on the deceased and 80% is attributed on the driver of the offending Auto Rickshaw."

Regarding the calculation of compensation and application of precedents such as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others ( "(2017) 16 SCC 680": 2017 CaseBase(SC) 551), Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram and Others, and Rasmita Biswal vs. Div. Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., the Court adjusted future prospects, consortium, and conventional heads.

The Court has the following directions:

"i) MFA No.3444/2025 filed by the claimants is dismissed;

ii) MFA No.8370/2024 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed-in-part;

iii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.3084/2023, dated 21.10.2024, passed by the I Additional Small Causes Judge & ACJM & Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, at Bengaluru (SCCH-11) is modified;

iv) The appellants - claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,54,240/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation from the date of filing of the petition till realization;

v) The compensation amount along with accrued interest if any, shall be deposited by the Insurance Company, within eight weeks from the date of filing of the petition till realization;

vi) Apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be as per the impugned Award of the Tribunal.

vii) Amount in deposit along with accrued interest, if any shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

viii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the judgment passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

ix) No order as to costs."

Background

On January 27, 2023, the deceased was struck by an Autorickshaw while attempting to cross Sunkadakatte Main Road to purchase medicines, subsequently succumbing to his injuries. The claimants filed a petition under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.22,28,204/- with 6% interest per annum, holding the vehicle owner and insurer jointly and severally liable.

The claimants filed MFA No. 3444 of 2025 seeking enhancement of compensation, while the Insurance Company filed MFA No. 8370 of 2024 challenging the total negligence attributed to the driver and the quantum awarded. The High Court reassessed the income, applied a multiplier of '11' as per the Aadhaar card age of 51 years, and deducted 20% for contributory negligence, reducing the net payable amount to Rs.13,54,240/-.

Case Details:
Case No.: MFA No. 3444 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 8370 of 2024
Case Title: Smt. Shakunthala and Another v. The Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri Ranganathaprasad B.S., Advocate (in MFA 3444/2025) & Sri Muralidhar Negavar, Advocate (in MFA 8370/2024)
For the Respondent(s): Sri Muralidhar Negavar, Advocate for R1 (in MFA 3444/2025) & Sri Ranganathaprasad B.S., Advocate for R1 & R2 (in MFA 8370/2024)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 16905