- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200467 OF 2019 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202112 OF 2016(MV-I), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202113 OF 2016(MV-I), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202114 OF 2016(MV-I), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200264 OF 2017(MV-I), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200265 OF 2017(MV-I), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200266 OF 2017(MV-I), MFA CROSS OBJ NO.200034 OF 2019(MV-D) IN MFA NO.200467/2019: BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN. INS. CO. LTD. UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR, LEVEL-06, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 59TH ‘C’ CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJI NAGAR, 4TH MAIN, BENGALURU-560010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GEETA W/O VINAY @ VINAYAK JANGAMSHETTY, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS R/O W. NO. 12, BLDEA ROAD, BASAVESHWAR COLONY, VIJAYPUR-586101 2. SMT. MAHADEVI D/O MOHAN JANGAMSHETTY, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. W. NO. 12, BLDEA ROAD, BASAVESHWAR COLONY, VIJAYPUR-586101 3. MR. PAVAN B. UDUPUDI, PROP: M/S PAVAN LOGISTICS, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O LOKAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL DIST: BAGALKOT-587101. 4. KARABASAPPA S/O HANAMANTH LAVAGI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O P NO.29, BASAVA NILAYA NEAR DCC BANK HO K C. NAGAR VIJAYAPURA-586101. (OWNER OF CAR NO KA-28-M-8453) 5. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SANGAM BUILDING, P B NO 60 S. S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2; NOTICE TO R-3 AND R-4 SERVED; SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-5) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.3, VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.1744/2016 AND TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION AWARDED. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS IN MFA NO.202112 OF 2016: BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INS.CO.LTD NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE M. G. ROAD, VIJAYAPUR NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH MANAGER LEGAL CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INS. CO. LTD., UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 59TH ‘C’ CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJI NAGAR, 4TH M BLOCK, BANGALORE-560010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MURUGENDRA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA TORLI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: TAX PRACTITIONER, R/O GURUKUL ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. 2. PAVAN B.UDUPUDI, PROP: PAVAN LOGISTICS, A/P: LOKAPUR, TQ.MUDHOL, DIST.BAGALKOT - 587122. 3. KARABASAPPA S/O HANAMANTH LAVAGI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O P.NO.29, BASAVAN NILAYA, NEAR DCC BANK, H.O., K.C. NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR.-586101. 4. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. SANGAM BUILDING, P.B.NO.60, S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS (BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R-2 AND R-3 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.III, VIJAYAPUR AT VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.38/2015 AND TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION AWARDED. IN MFA NO.202113 OF 2016: BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INS.CO.LTD., NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE, M. G. ROAD VIJAYPUR NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH MANAGER LEGAL CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INS. CO. LTD., UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR, GOLDEN HIGHTS COMPLEX, 59TH ‘C’ CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJI NAGAR, 4TH M BLOCK, BANGALORE-560010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VIMALESH S/O RAMESH PORWAL, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O ARIHANT COLONY, LINGADA ROAD, VIJAYAPURA, SINCE HE HAS LOST HIS MEMORY, REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND – HIS FATHER AS HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN RAMESH S/O GOMRAJ PORWAL, AGE:57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS R/O ARIHANT COLONY, LINGADA ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101. 2. PAVAN B.UDUPUDI, PROP: PAVAN LOGISTICS, A/P LOKAPUR, TQ.MUDHOL, DIST.BAGALKOT – 587122 3. KARABASAPPA S/O HANAMANTH LAVAGI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O P.NO.29, BASAVAN NILAYA, NEAR DCC BANK H.O.,K.C NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA-586101. 4. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SANGAM BUILDING, P.B.NO.60, S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; NOTICE TO R-1 TO R-3 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.III, VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.39/2015 AND TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION AWARDED. IN MFA NO.202114 OF 2016: BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INS.CO.LTD., NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE M. G. ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH MANAGER LEGAL CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INS. CO. LTD., UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR, GOLDEN HIGHTS COMPLEX, 59TH ‘C’ CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJI NAGAR, 4TH M BLOCK BANGALORE-560010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BASAVARAJ S/O JAYANAND KORI, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O GURURAJ COLONY, ASHRAM ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. 2. PAVAN B.UDUPUDI, PROP:PAVAN LOGISTICS, A/P LOKAPUR, TQ.MUDHOL, DIST.BAGALKOT – 587122. 3. KARABASAPPA S/O HANAMANTH LAVAGI, AGE:41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O P.NO.29, BASAVAN NILAYA, NEAR DCC BANK H.O.,K.C NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA-586101. 4. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SANGAM BUILDING, P.B.NO.60, S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; V/O DATED 24.08.2022 NOTICE TO R-1 IS TREATED AS SERVED; NOTICE TO R-2 IS SERVED; V/O DATED 14.06.2023 APPEAL AGAINST R-3 IS DISMISSED) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.III, VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.40/2015 AND TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION AWARDED. IN MFA NO.200264 OF 2017: BETWEEN: MURUGHENDRA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA TORLI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: TAX PRACTITIONER, R/O: GURUKUL ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PAVAN B.UDUPUDI, PROP: PAVAN LOGISTICS, A/P: LOKAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587122 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE, M.G.ROAD VIJAYAPUR-586101 3. KARABASAPPA S/O HANAMANTH LAVAGI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: P.NO.29, BASAVAN NILAYA, NEAR DCC BANK.H.O., K.C.NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR-586101 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS SANGAM BUILDING P.B.NO.60, S.S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYPUR.586101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R-1 AND R-3 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.III, VIJAYAPUR, AT-VIJAYAPUR IN M.V.C.NO.38/2015 DATED 24.08.2016 BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT. IN MFA NO.200265 OF 2017: BETWEEN: VIMALESH S/O RAMESH PORWAL, AGE:33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: ARIHANT COLONY, LINGADA ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101. SINCE HE HAS LOST HIS MEMORY, REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND HIS FATHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, RAMESH S/O GOMRAJ PORWAL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: ARIHANT COLONY, LINGADA ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS AND: 1. PAVAN B. UDUPUDI, PROP: PAVAN LOGISTICS, A/P: LOKAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587122 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101 3. KARABASAPPA S/O HANAMANTH LAVAGI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 29, BASAVAN NILAYA, NEAR DCC BANCK, H.O., K.C. NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR-586101 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SANGAM BUILDING. P.B. NO.60 S.S.S FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; NOTICE TO R-1 AND R-3 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.III, VIJAYAPUR AT-VIJAYAPUR IN M.V.C.NO.39/2015 DATED 24.08.2016 BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND TO - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT, IN MFA NO.200266 OF 2017: BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ S/O JAYANAND KORI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: GURURAJ COLONY, ASHRAM ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PAVAN B. UDUPUDI, PROP: PAVAN LOGISTICS, A/P: LOKAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587122 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101 3. KARABASAPPA S/O HANAMANTH LAVAGI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: P NO. 29, BASAVAN NILAYA, NEAR DCC BANK, H.O., K.C. NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR-586101 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SANGAM BUILDING. P.B. NO.60 S.S.S FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101 …RESPONDENTS - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R-1 AND R-3 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.III, VIJAYAPUR AT-VIJAYAPUR IN M.V.C.NO.40/2015 DATED 24.08.2016 BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT. IN MFA CROB NO.200034 OF 2019: BETWEEN: 1. SMT.GEETA W/O VINAY @ VINAYAK JANGAMSHETTI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O MOHAN JANGAMSHETTI, AGE: 58 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, BOTH ARE R/O W.NO. 12 BLDEA ROAD, BASAVESHWAR COLONY, VIJAYAPUR-586101 …CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR.PAVAN B.UDUPUDI, PROP:M/S PAVAN LOGISTICS, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS R/O LOKAPUR TQ: MUDHOL DIST: BAGALKOT-587101. 2. THE MANAGER LEGAL, CHOLAMANDALAM M.S.GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT, 9TH FLOOR LEVEL-06, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 59TH C-CROSS INDUSTRIAL SUBURB RAJAJI NAGAR, 4TH MAIN BENGALURU-560010. 3. SRI KARABASAPPA S/O HANAMANTH LAVAGI, AGE: 45 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS, R/O P.NO.29 BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR DCC BANK HEAD OFFICE, K.C. NAGAR VIJAYAPUR-586101. 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. SANGAM BUILDING PB NO.60 S.S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O DATED 14.12.2020 NOTICE TO R-1 AND R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.06.2018 PASSED BY THE MEMBER MACT-III VIJAYAPUR IN MVC NO.1744/2016. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) MFA Nos.200467/2019, 202112/2016, 202113/2016 and 202114/2016 are filed by the Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited challenging the negligence and liability whereas MFA Nos.200264/2017, 200265/2017, 200266/2017 and MFA Crob.No.200034/ 2019 are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC Nos.38/2015, 39/2015 and 40/2015 passed by the MACT- III, Vijayapur dated 24.08.2016 and MVC No.1744/2016 dated 25.06.2018 passed by the MACT-III, Vijayapur. 2. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as the learned - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS counsel for the claimants and other respondents-Insurance Company. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that they have filed the claim petitions under Sections 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation for the death of one Vinay @ Vinayak in MVC No.1744/2016 and three injured persons in MVC Nos.38 to 40 of 2015. They have sustained injuries in the road traffic accident dated 25.09.2014. It is alleged that on the said date the deceased along with three injured persons were traveling in a car bearing Reg.No.KA-28/M-8452. When they were going on Vijayapur-Hubballi road, near Gobbaraguppi Cross, the car dashed against a parked lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-29/4842 which was parked on the middle of the road without following any Motor Vehicle Rules and keeping on indicators while parking the lorry. Due to which one person died and three persons suffered grievous injuries. They were admitted in the hospital for treatment. Due to the injuries, three persons suffered permanent - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS disability and one person sustained head injury and died in the hospital on 28.07.2016 i.e., after 22 months of the accident. Hence, the claimants claimed compensation on various heads. 4. It is contended that this accident occurred due to the parking of the lorry on the middle of the road without indicator and without taking any precautionary measures. Therefore, driver of the lorry and respondent No.2 - Insurer are liable to pay compensation. Insurer of the lorry appeared and filed statement of objections by denying the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and it is contended that the complaint was filed by the cleaner of the lorry as against the driver of the car and he was rash and negligent in driving the car. The front side tyre of the lorry was burst and it was parked on the middle of the road. But the driver of the car was rash and negligent and dashed to the lorry. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry in order to fix the liability on the owner of the lorry and insurer of - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS the lorry and the liability shall be fixed on the owner and the insurer of the car. It is also contended that even otherwise, there is contributory negligence on the part of both drivers of both the vehicles. It is further contended that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% is on the higher side and it must be 6%. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 5. The Insurer of the car also appeared and filed statement of objection by denying the contention that the driver of the lorry has taken care and caution. It is contended that due to negligent parking of the lorry without any indicator, the accident has occurred. Therefore, the entire liability has to fixed on the owner and insurer of the lorry and hence prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. However, they have admitted issuance of package policy. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS ISSUES IN MVC No.38/2015 1. Whether the petitioner proves that, accident dated 25.9.2014 was due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing its Reg. No.KA-29/A-4842 by its driver, causing injuries to him? 2. Whether petitioner is entitled for award of compensation. If so, how much and from whom? 3. What order or award? ISSUES IN MVC No. 39/2015 1. Whether the petitioner proves that, accident dated 25.9.2014 was due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing its Reg. No.KA-29/A-4842 by its driver, causing injuries to him? 2. Whether petitioner is entitled for award of compensation. If so, how much and from whom? 3. What order or award? ISSUES IN MVC No. 40/2015 1. Whether the petitioner proves that, accident dated 25.9.2014 was due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing its Reg. No.KA-29/A-4842 by its driver, causing injuries to him? 2. Whether petitioner is entitled for award of compensation. If so, how much and from whom? - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS 3. What order or award? ISSUE IN MVC No.1744/2016 1. Whether the petitioners prove that, accident dated 25.9.2014 was due to negligent parking of the Lorry bearing its Reg. No.KA-29/A-4842 on the middle of the road without laking any safety steps by its driver, resulting into death of Vinay @ Vinayak s/o Mohan Jangamshetti? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for award of compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3. What order or award?” 7. The claimants in MVC Nos.38/2015 to 40/2015 examined PW-1 to PW-5. PW-2 stated to be father of the injured and PW-4 and PW-5 are the doctors who gave the disability certificate and they have got marked 88 documents. On behalf of the respondents, two witnesses have been examined, though admitted the issuance of insurance policy. 8. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal allowed the claim petitions i.e., MVC Nos.38 to 40 of 2015 vide common judgment dated 24.08.2016 awarding - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- in MVC No.38/2015, Rs.2,39,000/- in MVC No.39/2015 and Rs.1,03,800/- in MVC No.40/2015 with 9% interest by fixing the liability on the insurer of the lorry - respondent No.2 and dismissing the claim petitions as against owner and insurer of the car. 9. The Tribunal in MVC No.1744/2016 dated 25.06.2018 for the death of Vinay @ Vinayak has awarded compensation of Rs.18,86,200/- by fixing the liability on the owner and insurer of the lorry. Being aggrieved by the fixing of liability on the owner and insurer of the lorry, the first four appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company. Claimants have filed other four appeals for enhancement of compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has strenuously contended that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing the liability solely on the driver of the lorry even though there was contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers. The charge sheet was also filed against both the drivers of the car as - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS well as driver of the lorry. Such being the case, fixing the liability solely on the Insurer of the lorry is not correct. It is contended that the lorry was forced to park on the road due to bursting of its tyre. Therefore, the question of fixing the liability solely on the driver of the lorry is not correct. The driver of the car could have taken care and caution while driving the vehicle and could have avoided the accident. Alternatively, prayed for fixing 50% negligence to both the drivers. Hence, prayed to allow their appeals. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants seriously contended that the Tribunal has not properly awarded compensation towards pain and suffering, attendant charges, food nourishment, loss of income during laid up period, loss of amenities, etc. The disability suffered by the claimants was also not properly ascertained and has awarded meager compensation. Hence, prayed for enhancing the same. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS 12. Learned counsel appearing for claimant in MFA No.200467/2019 strenuously contended that injuries were sustained by the deceased on 25.09.2014 in the accident. He was taken to the hospital, he has sustained head injuries. He has undergone surgery on the skull and he became paraphysial. Another surgery was done and he was inpatient for almost 22 months and succumbed to the injuries on 28.07.2016. Therefore, awarding of compensation in respect of medical expenses, attendant and conveyance charges is very meager amount. The injured deceased was admitted in the hospital at Hubballi and the residence of the deceased was Vijayapur. Therefore, the Tribunal should have considered awarding higher compensation towards attendant and conveyance charges. Hence, prayed for awarding one month salary to the attendant and apart from the conveyance charges, food and nourishment to the attendant. The deceased has suffered more pain and there must be award towards shadow of death of the deceased. Apart from that, it is - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS contended that the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is very meager. The Tribunal should have considered the income as per the chart prepared by the Legal Services Authority. He also contended that the consortium was not properly awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation on various heads. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company supported the compensation assessed by the Tribunal. 14. We have heard the arguments and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The points that arise for our consideration are: (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fixing the liability on the owner and insurer of the lorry in question which call for interference? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation, if so, to what extent? - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS 15. On careful verification of the documents especially the Trial Court records called in MVC No.38/2015 i.e., MFA No.202112/2016, the claimants have examined and got marked various documents. The accident dated 25.09.2014 had occurred in the night at 11.30 p.m. when the lorry belonging to respondent No.1 was parked on the middle of the road and the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-28/M-8453 dashed to the parked lorry is not in dispute. Admittedly, the accident had occurred at 11.30 p.m. where the lorry was stated to have parked on the middle of the road. As per the panchanama prepared by the police and investigation report submitted by the police officer goes to show that the lorry was parked in the middle of the road. Of course the contention of the lorry cleaner that the tyre of the lorry was burst and therefore, they parked the lorry in the middle of the road. However, they have not adduced any evidence of either the cleaner or the driver of the lorry before the Court to show he has taken all the care and caution while parking - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS the lorry on the middle of the road. The indicators of the lorry were not on. There is no mentioning in either the charge sheet or the FIR to show that the driver of the lorry had taken all care and caution while parking the lorry. But driver of the car dashed to the lorry due to which three persons injured one person sustained grievous injures and died after 22 months due to the injuries sustained. There is no dispute in respect of injuries sustained by the three injured persons and death of a person due to the accident. 16. Now the question is whether the fixing of liability solely on the owner and insurer of the lorry is correct or there must be contributory negligence must be fixed on both the drivers i.e., driver of the car as well as driver of the lorry. Admittedly, the charge sheet is filed by the police as against both the drivers which is marked as Ex.P-5 and P-6. It was mentioned by the police that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver and parking of the lorry by the driver of the lorry. This charge sheet filed against the driver of the car - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS was not challenged by the driver of the car before the court of law. Even the driver of the car also not appeared before the court and given any evidence that he was very slow in driving the vehicle in night hours by taking all the precautionary measures. Accident has occurred due to parking of the lorry by the driver of the driver without any indicator and also due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. Due to contributory negligence by both the drivers, this accident has occurred, due to which three persons got injured and one person died. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car cannot be accepted. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein in the said case, driver of the car had given evidence before the court but in the present case the driver of the car not at all entered appearance and given any evidence. Even the owner of the car not given any evidence to show that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS On the other hand, they have accepted the charge sheet filed by the police. Therefore, there was contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers of the vehicles. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was occurred purely on the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry cannot be accepted. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal requires interference by this Court. 17. The lorry is a bigger vehicle and the car is a smaller vehicle and the lorry was parked in the middle of the road and not on the side of the road and accident has occurred in the dark i.e. at 11.30 p.m. Therefore, we propose to consider contributory negligence at 70% on the driver of the lorry and at 30% on the driver of the car. Accordingly, we answer point No.1. 18. As regards the computation of compensation in respect of the claimant – Murughendra in MFA.No.200264/2017 arising out of MVC.No.38/2015, it is stated that the claimant-injured is said to be working as a Chartered Accountant and earning income of Rs.40,000/- - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS per month and he has also suffered disability of 20-25%, but the Tribunal did not award any compensation towards the loss of earning capacity and also it is contended that the amount of compensation awarded towards pain and suffering, food and nourishment charges, attendant charges and conveyance are also meager. Hence, prayed for enhancing the same. 19. We have perused the findings of the Tribunal in computing compensation in respect of the claimant – Murughendra in MVC.No.38/2015. As per the evidence adduced by the claimant, he has produced Ex.P10, P11, P12, P16 and P9 which are the income tax returns for the year 2010-11 to 2013-14 filed by him to show the income proof. As per the income tax returns for the year 2011-12, his income is Rs.13,166/- per month. As per the income tax returns at Ex.P10, income for the year 2012-13 is shown as Rs.18,364/- per month and as per Ex.P9 the income for the year 2013-14 is Rs.21,799/- per month. If we calculate the average income of 3 years i.e., from - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS 2011-12 to 2013-14, it comes to Rs.17,776/- (Rs.53,329/3) per month. This should be the actual income of the injured-claimant, whereas the Tribunal has considered only Rs.16,500/-. Hence, we propose to increase the income of the claimant to Rs.17,776/-. 20. As regards the pain and sufferings, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- which is meager, as he has suffered grievous injuries. Hence, we propose to award Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings. The medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,63,300/- which based on the documents, the same is hereby confirmed. The Tribunal awarded conveyance charges at Rs.3,200/-, attendant charges at Rs.5,000/- and food and nourishment at Rs.10,000/-, in total the Tribunal awarded Rs.18,200/-. Hence, we propose to award Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.18,200/- under the said head. 21. As regard to the loss of income during the laid up period, the Tribunal considered for 7 months. There is no document to show that the claimant has laid up for 7 - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS months. Therefore, we propose to consider 4 months towards the loss of income during the treatment. Hence, loss of income during the laid up period is calculated as under: 4 x 17,776/- = Rs.71,104/-. 22. As regards the loss of amenities, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.8,000/-. The claimant suffered grievous injuries and was laid up for 4 months. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,63,300/- towards the medical expenses. Such being the case, awarding Rs.8,000/- towards loss of amenities is very meager. Hence, we propose to award Rs.30,000/- towards the loss of amenities. 23. As regards the future loss of income due to permanent disability, though the Tribunal considered evidence of PW.2, but did not award any compensation. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal erred in not taking any loss of income due to the permanent disability - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS suffered by the claimant. As per the evidence of the Doctor, the claimant suffered 20-25% of disability, but as per Ex.P87, it is not specifically mentioned as to whether the disability is to the particular limb or whole body. Considering the nature of the work and injury sustained by him, we propose to consider 9% of disability towards the whole body. Hence, loss of income due to permanent disability is calculated as under: Rs.17,776 x 12 x 17 x 9% = Rs.3,26,367/- 24. The claimant-Murughendra is entitled for the re- assessed compensation under the following heads :- Head of compensation Compensation amount Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/- Medical expenses Rs.1,63,300/- Conveyance charges Rs.10,000/- Food and nourishment Rs.5,000/- Attendant charges Rs.5,000/- Loss of income during laid up period Rs.71,104/- Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS Future loss of income due to permanent disability Rs.3,26,367/- Total Rs.6,50,771/- Award by the Tribunal Rs.3,25,000/- Enhancement Rs.3,25,771/- 25. As regards the computation of compensation in respect of the claimant in MVC.No.39/2015, the age of the claimant is 31 years. He is said to be running a medical shop as pharmacist. The learned counsel for the appellant- claimant submits that the claimant was an income tax assessee and he has filed the income tax returns. As per the evidence, the document produced by PW.2 who is the father of the claimant, the income details for the year 2012-13 is at Rs.35,726/- per month, for the year 2013- 14 is at Rs.30,299/- per month and as per Ex.P66, income tax returns for the year 2014-15, the income is at Rs.34,190/- per month. If average income of the 3 previous years is considered i.e., from 2012-13 to 2014- 15, it comes to Rs.33,405/- (Rs.1,00,215/3) per month. This should be the monthly income of the claimant. The - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS Tribunal also considered the same. Therefore, we propose to confirm the same. 26. As regards the pain and agony, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.25,000/-, but the claimant is said to be sustained head injury and he is unable to speak and suffering from memory loss. Therefore, his father was examined as PW.2. Considering the same, we propose to award Rs.40,000/- towards the pain and agony. The medical expenses incurred by the claimant was Rs.1,87,352/-, the same is hereby upheld based upon the document. As per the food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges, we propose to award Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.18,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. As regards the loss of income during laid up period, we propose to consider 3 months’ income as loss of income during laid up period, which comes to Rs.1,00,215/- (Rs.33,405 x 3). Towards the loss of amenities, we propose to award Rs.30,000/- to the claimant. - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS 27. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the claimant is suffering from memory loss and it is stated and examined by PW.2 - father, there is no positive evidence or document produced by them and not examined any expert before the Court to show that the claimant is suffering from memory loss. Thereby, he lost the income capacity. 28. Considering the fact and circumstances, the medical expenses spent by the claimant is Rs.1,87,352/- and considering his previous income though there is no document to show his disability, we propose to award a global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the disability/memory loss suffered by the claimant. Accordingly, the claimant – Vimalesh is entitled for the re- assessed compensation as under: Head of compensation Compensation amount Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/- Medical expenses Rs.1,87,352/- - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS Conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges Rs.20,000/- Loss of income during laid up period Rs.1,00,215/- Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- Future loss of income due to permanent disability Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.4,77,567/- Award by the Tribunal Rs.2,39,000/- Enhancement Rs.2,38,567/- 29. As regards the computation of compensation in MVC.No.40/2015, the age of the claimant is shown as 31 years and he is said to be earning income of Rs.40,000/- per month by running a business of Security System i.e., fixing of CCTV cameras in the name and style of ‘Akash Enterprises’. The Ex.P72 is the Form VAT-7 Tax Registration Certificate. The Tribunal has considered his average income at Rs.12,500/-. There is no reason for enhancing the same. Hence, the income is considered as Rs.12,500/- per month. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Hence, we propose to award Rs.40,000/- towards pain and - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS sufferings. The medical expenses at Rs.27,691/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. Towards food and nourishment charges, the Tribunal awarded Rs.13,600/-, but we propose to award Rs.15,000/-. Towards the loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/-, but there is no reason for reducing the said amount. Hence, we propose to award Rs.30,000/- towards the loss of future amenities. As the claimant took the treatment for short period, we propose to award Rs.12,500/- as loss of income during laid up period for one month. 30. As regards the disability, the Tribunal has not considered the disability and awarded any amount. The Tribunal did not consider the evidence of PW.4 – Dr. Satish Rashinkar who stated that the claimant suffered 10 to 15% disability to the whole body. However, looking into the nature of the injury, the Tribunal did not grant any award in respect of loss of future income. There is no reason for discarding the evidence of PW.4 – Dr. Satish Rashikar who was a surgeon and has given evidence - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS before the Court regarding the disability. Therefore, considering the fact and circumstances, we propose to consider 5% disability to the whole body instead of 10 to 15% as stated by the doctor. Hence, loss of future income due to permanent disability is calculated as under: Rs.12,500/- x 12 x 16 x 5% = Rs.1,20,000/-. 31. Accordingly, the claimant – Basavaraj Kori is entitled for the re-assessed compensation as under: Head of compensation Compensation amount Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/- Medical expenses Rs.27,691/- Conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges Rs.15,000/- Loss of income during laid up period Rs.12,500/- Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- Future loss of income due to permanent disability Rs.1,20,000/- Total Rs.2,45,191/- Award by the Tribunal Rs.1,03,800/- Enhancement Rs.1,41,391/- - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS 32. As regards the MFA Cross Objection arising out of MVC.No.1744/2016, there was death of the deceased Vinay @ Vinayak who said to be suffered injury in the said accident on 25.09.2014 and after the prolonged treatment he died in the hospital on 28.07.2016 and post mortem was also conducted. There is nexus between the injury and the death which is not seriously disputed by the Insurance Company or the insured. Therefore, there is no evidence to discard the evidence of PW.1. 33. As regards the income, the Tribunal has taken Rs.6,000/- per month as there is no proof of income produced by the claimants. Therefore, we consider the notional income as per the chart of the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, for the year 2016 instead of the date of accident in the year 2014. The income is considered at Rs.8,750/- per month. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% income should be - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS added as future prospects. Thus, future If Rs.8,750/- is considered as income and 40% of future prospect is added (8,750 + 3500), it comes to Rs.12,250/- per month. There are two claimants i.e, mother and wife of the deceased, therefore 1/3rd of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenditure. If 1/3rd is deducted from Rs.12,250/-, it comes to Rs.4,083/-. Thus, loss of dependency is calculated as under: Computation of loss of dependency Description Amount Income Rs.8,750.00 Addition to such income at the rate 40% towards future prospects Rs.3,500.00 Monthly Income with the addition towards future prospects Rs.12,250.00 Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs.4083.00 Monthly income with addition of future prospects and deduction towards personal expenses Rs.8167.00 Therefore, Annual Income (8167 x 12) Rs.98,004.00 Multiplier 16 Loss of Dependency Rs.15,68,064.00 Rounded off to Rs.15,68,000.00 - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS 34. The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that the injured was though under treatment in the hospital at Hubbali, but the claimants of the injured were resided in Vijayapura. The deceased – Vinay @ Vinayak was admitted to the hospital on 05.09.2014 and he died on 28.07.2016. Almost 22 months he was under treatment and an attendant was deputed for taking care of the deceased. Therefore, we propose to award Rs.200/- per day towards attendant charges. Hence, attendant charges during his treatment period is calculated as under: Rs.200 x 30 x 22 = Rs.1,32,000/- 35. That apart, the claimants were residing in Vijayapura, they ought to have visited frequently to the hospital and they would have spent lot of amount towards food, conveyance charges and other miscellaneous expenditure. Therefore, we propose to award Rs.68,000/- towards food, conveyance charges and other miscellaneous expenditure to the claimants. - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS 36. Both the claimants are entitled at Rs.40,000/- each towards the loss of consortium as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanuram alias Chuhru Ram & others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782. Though the Tribunal considered only Rs.40,000/-, we propose to award another Rs.40,000/- i.e., in total Rs.80,000/- towards the loss of consortium and Rs.30,000/- towards the loss of estate and funeral expenses. The medical expenses at Rs.7,26,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is unaltered as the same is upheld by this Court. Accordingly, the compensation is re-assessed as under: Description Amount Medical Expenses Rs.7,26,000.00 Loss of dependency Rs.15,68,000.00 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 2) Rs.80,000.00 Attendant charges Rs.1,32,000.00 Food, conveyance charges and other miscellaneous expenditure Rs.68,000.00 Conventional head Rs.30,000.00 Total Rs.26,04,000.00 Award of the Tribunal Rs.18,86,200.00 Enhanced Compensation Rs.7,17,800.00 - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS 37. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company though strenuously disputed the contributory negligence, however we have held in point No.1 that there is contributory negligence under the ratio of 70% to the driver of the lorry and 30% to the driver of the car. The learned counsel for both the insurance companies have contended that 9% interest awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive. Therefore, looking into the facts and circumstances, we propose to reduce the interest from 9% to 6% per annum. 38. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA.No.200467/2019, MFA.No.202112/2016, MFA.No.202113/2016 and MFA.No.202114/2016 filed by the Insurance Company are allowed in part. - 42 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS ii. MFA.No.200264/2017, MFA.No.200265/2017 and MFA.No.200266/2017 filed by the injured - claimants are allowed in part. iii. MFA.Crob.No.200034/2019 filed by the filed by the claimants is allowed in part. iv. The claimants – Murughendra, Vimalesh and Basavaraj Kori are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,25,771/-, Rs.2,38,567/- and Rs.1,41,391/- respectively over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. v. The claimants in MVC.No.1744/2016 are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.7,17,800/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. vi. The Liability is fixed on the owner and insurer of the lorry at 70% and in respect of the owner and insurer of the car at 30%. - 43 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2096-DB MFA No. 200467 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 202112 of 2016 MFA No. 202113 of 2016 AND 5 OTHERS vii. The interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 6% per annum and hence the award shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. viii. Six weeks' time is granted for the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal along with the trial Court records. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) SWK/MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:SI