- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2512 MFA No. 200233 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200233 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAXMI W/O NAGAPPA SANGULGI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. KUMARI USHARANI D/O LATE NAGAPPA SANGULGI, AGE: 15 YEARS, MINOR STUDENT, 3. MASTER AAKASH S/O LATE NAGAPPA SANGULGI, AGE: 14 YEARS, MINOR, 4. SUHASINI D/O LATE NAGAPPA SANGULGI, AGE: 11 YEARS, MINOR, 5. ASHWINI D/O LATE NAGAPPA SANGULGI, AGE: 05 YEARS, MINOR, ALL MINORS U/G OF THEIR OTHER SMT. LAXMI W/O LATE NAGAPPA SANGULGI APPELLANT NO.1. 6. MALLAMMA W/O BHOJAPPA, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 7. BHOJAPPA S/O SANGAPPA, AGE: 81 YEARS, OCC: NIL, ALL ARE R/O SHAKARGUNJ WADI, TQ. HUMNABAD585 330. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2512 MFA No. 200233 of 2022 AND: 1. ANIL GAUTAM S/O SHIVSHARANAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O H.NO. 2/614, SEDAM ROAD, SUNDAR NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585 101, (OWNER OF HYUNDAI CAR BEARING REGD. NO. LA-31/P-0142). 2. THE MANAGER, LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 10TH FLOOR, TOWER-A, PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK, GANPATH RAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 013. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.S. KALABURAGI, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 24.02.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BIDAR IN MVC NO.240/2018. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2512 MFA No. 200233 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.240/2018 passed by the 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and MACT, Bidar, dated 30.03.2021, the petitioners are before this Court in appeal. 2. The petitioners are the wife, children and parents of the deceased. It is the case of the petitioners that on 20.01.2018 at about 06.30 pm, the deceased was returning to his village from Bidar on his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.KA-38-J-9832 along with a pillion rider Sangappa. Near Andurwadi Cross, the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-32-P-0142 came in high speed and negligent manner and after driving the same in zigzag manner, overtook the motorcycle of the deceased. The driver of the car lost control of the vehicle and therefore, he applied sudden brakes. As a result, the deceased who was just behind his car, hit the rear portion of the car and fell down on the road. Due to the head injuries sustained, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2512 MFA No. 200233 of 2022 the deceased died at the spot. His relative, who was also on a motorcycle behind him, saw the accident, stopped the two wheeler and found that the driver of the car had sped away from the spot after leaving the car at the spot. The petitioners were informed by the said eyewitness, who also lodged a complaint to the jurisdictional Police, which came to be registered in Cr.No.11/2018. The Police after investigation, filed charge sheet against the car driver. The petitioners claimed compensation from the owner and insurer of the car. 3. On being served with the notice, respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal but the respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement. The respondent No.2 contended that though the concerned Police had registered a false complaint against the driver of the car and there was no such negligence on the part of the car driver. It alleged that the deceased himself was negligent in driving the vehicle without maintaining sufficient distance between - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2512 MFA No. 200233 of 2022 his motorcycle and the car. Therefore, it sought for dismissal of the claim petition. In-alia it had also contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and had denied the age income and occupation of the deceased. 4. On the basis of the above contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to 10 were marked. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. 5. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NISHAN SINGH AND OTHERS VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.1, came to the conclusion that the deceased had not maintained the safe distance between his vehicle and car, as such, the negligence was by him and therefore, dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court in appeal. 1 (2018) 6 SCC 765 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2512 MFA No. 200233 of 2022 6. On appeal being admitted, the arguments by learned counsel for the appellants was heard. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 despite the matter was listed for final hearing. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal has totally erred in relying on the judgment of the Apex Court where the facts were totally different. He submits that it was a case where a Maruti Car was following a Truck and the Truck Driver when applied the brakes, the car had rammed to the back of the truck. It is relevant to note that in the case on hand, the complaint filed by one Sangappa, who was an eyewitness to the accident categorically mentioned that the car driver had overtaken the two wheeler of the deceased and had driven it in a zigzag manner. Since he could not control the car, he had applied the brakes which resulted in the collision between the two wheeler of the deceased and the car. It is pertinent to note that the overtaking of the two wheeler by the car driver is clear in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2512 MFA No. 200233 of 2022 the testimony of the eyewitness and the Police papers. Therefore, on facts, the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NISHAN SINGH (referred supra) can be distinguished. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal did not look into the factual matrix of the present case as depicted in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet papers. Therefore the conclusions reached by the Tribunal are not sustainable in law. 8. The records reveal that the Police conducted the investigation and ultimately, have filed charge sheet against the car driver. It is pertinent to note that the spot mahazar which is at the Ex.P4 and the sketch which is at Ex.P5 clearly depict that the two-wheeler as well as the car were going towards Bidar and the accident had taken place at a distance of 10 feet from the edge of the road. Obviously the road is 24 feet wide and the spot clearly show that the deceased was on his left side. In the result, there was no reason for the car driver to overtake and then apply the brakes abruptly. Had there been no such - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2512 MFA No. 200233 of 2022 overtaking by the car driver, the view of the Tribunal could have been upheld. The overtaking of the two wheeler by the car driver being categorical in all the investigation papers as well as the testimonies, the impugned judgment on this aspect is not sustainable. Resultantly, the actionable negligence has to be attributed to the car driver and as such, respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 9. Coming to the quantum of the compensation, there is no evidence on record to show the income of the deceased. The records including the PM Report at Ex.P7 show that the deceased was aged 42 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘14’. In the absence of any material on record to show the income of the deceased, the notional income has to be considered. 10. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) for the purpose of settlement of the disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe the notional income of Rs.11,750/- for the year 2018. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2512 MFA No. 200233 of 2022 Adding 25% towards ‘future prospects’, the effective multiplicand would be Rs.14,687/- (Rs.11,750/- + 25%). In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are held to be acceptable on the ground that they are in general conformity with the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. The deceased has left behind him a large family of the present petitioners. Therefore, the personal expenses of the deceased are held at 1/4th. Hence, the ‘loss of dependency’ is calculated as Rs.14,687/- X 12 X ¾ X 14, which comes to Rs.18,50,562/-. Adding a sum of Rs.19,500/- towards the ‘funeral expenses’, a sum of Rs.19,000/- towards the ‘loss of estate’ and a sum of Rs.52,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’, the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.19,41,062/-. Hence, the following: Sl. No. Heads Compensation (Amount in Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency 18,50,562/- 2 Funeral expenses 19,500/- 3 Loss of estate 19,000/- 4 Loss of consortium 52,000/- Total 19,41,062/- - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2512 MFA No. 200233 of 2022 11. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed and hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. (iii) The appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.19,41,062/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization by the Tribunal. (iv) The petitioner No.1 is entitled for 35%, petitioner Nos. to 5 are entitled for 10% each and petitioner Nos.6 and 7 are entitled for 12.5% each, respectively of the compensation amount. (v) The 50% of the compensation amount of the petitioner No.1 and entire amount of compensation of petitioner Nos.2 to - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2512 MFA No. 200233 of 2022 5 be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years or until they attaining the majority, whichever is earlier. The entire compensation amount of respondent Nos.6 and 7 and the remaining 50% of the compensation amount of the petitioner No.1 shall be released to them through electronic transfer on proper identification. (vi) The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation along with interest within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP,NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 CT: AK