- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20739 MFA No. 2106 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2106 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED I FLOOR, MAGANOOR COMPLEX, B.D. ROAD,CHITHRADURGA-577 501, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH MAIN, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER (LEGAL). …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LINGARAJ H S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B. SIDDAPPA & SIDDAMURTHY NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE BAJJERAPPA, R/O. CHIKKAGONDANAHALLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577501. 2. SAVITHRAMMA NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. B. SIDDAPPA, R/O. CHIKKAGONDANAHALLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. - 577501. Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20739 MFA No. 2106 of 2017 3. S. R. SANTOSH KUMAR MAJOR, S/O. LATE S.H. RAJANNA, R/O. CHIKKAGONDANAHALLI, TURUVANUR HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577501. 4. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED III FLOOR, S. CORNER BUILDING, OPP. BOWRING LADY CURZON HOSPITAL, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560052, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 5. DATTATREYA T. VARPE MAJOR, S/O. TULSIRAM, A/P KALAMB,R/O. AMBEGAON TALUK, PUNE DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA STATE-410002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VINAYA KUMAR N D., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2, SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R3 & R5 - SERVED UNREPRESENTED) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.903/2015 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 15,39,000/-WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL DATE OF PAYMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20739 MFA No. 2106 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal is filed by the respondent No.4 - Insurer, challenging the judgment and award dated 6.1.2016 passed in MVC No. No.903/2015 by the learned I Senior Civil Judge and IV MACT at Chitradurga1. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that one Thippeswamy (deceased) was traveling in a Eicher lorry bearing Regn. No.KA-16-C-04782 on 17.3.2015, when the said vehicle hit a milk tanker lorry bearing Regn. No.MH-14-DM-19043 from behind causing the accident in question, wherein the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. 4. The parents of the deceased instituted claim proceedings and arrayed the owner and Insurer of Eicher lorry as respondents No.1 and 2, and the owner and Insurer of the Tanker lorry as respondents No.3 and 4 before the Tribunal. 1 hereinafter referred to as `Tribunal' 2 hereinafter referred to as `Eicher lorry' 3 herein after referred to as `Tanker lorry' - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20739 MFA No. 2106 of 2017 The claim proceedings were contested by the Insurer of both the vehicles i.e. the respondents No.2 and 4. 5. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 6.1.2016 allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of `15,39,000/- together with interest at 8% p.a, and directed that the respondents No.1, 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The petition against the respondent No.2 - Insurer of Eicher lorry was dismissed. The owner of the Eicher lorry and Insurer of the Tanker lorry were held liable to pay compensation awarded in the ratio of 50% each. Being aggrieved, the Insurer of the Tanker lorry, who was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the claim proceedings has filed the present appeal. 6. Sri H S Lingaraj, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurer assailing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal contends that having regard to the fact that the Eicher lorry hit the Tanker lorry from behind, the finding of the Tribunal, wherein it is held that both the vehicles are negligent to an extent of 50% each in causing the accident is erroneous and liable to be interfered. Further while determining the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20739 MFA No. 2106 of 2017 quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it is contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the `future prospects' as 50%, and the compensation awarded towards `loss of estate' and `loss of love and affection' is also liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the interest at 8% p.a. by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He seeks to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, Sri Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2/claimants contends that the finding of the Tribunal on the negligent as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and ought not to be interfered by this Court in the present appeal. 8. Sri O Mahesh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that the respondent No.4 was arrayed as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. Hence, the proceedings having been dismissed against the respondent No.2, the said order of dismissal ought to be interfered by this Court in the present appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20739 MFA No. 2106 of 2017 9. The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. 10. The questions that arise for consideration are: a) Whether the finding of the Tribunal on negligence is erroneous is liable to be interfered? b) Whether the assessment of compensation of the Tribunal is on the higher side? Regarding the question No.(a): 11. The claimants have averred in the claim petition that the deceased had loaded onion bags in the Eicher lorry and was traveling in the said vehicle and proceeding to Bengaluru. The Tanker lorry was parked on the left side of the road without following the safety measures, as a result of which, the accident occurred. 12. The claim proceedings were contested by the respondent No.4 by filing statement of objections wherein it has denied the case putforth by the claimants. 13. The claimants, in order to their case, have examined the claimant No.1 as PW1, and eye witness to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20739 MFA No. 2106 of 2017 accident as PW2. PW2 is the eye witness to the accident, who has deposed as to the manner of occurrence of the accident. The respondent No.4 examined its officer as RW1, and the officer of the respondent No.2 has been examined as RW2. 14. The Tribunal considering the issue No.1 regarding the manner of occurrence of accident has noticed that pursuant to the complaint lodged regarding the occurrence of accident, charge sheet has been filed by the police authorities against the drivers of both the lorries. The Tribunal further noticed that the eye witness - PW2 has deposed that the tanker lorry was parked on the road without stop parking signals. Hence, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the drivers of both the lorries have contributed in causing the accident to an extent of 50% each. 15. It is forthcoming that the appellant apart from examining its official as RW1 has not examined any witness to contradict in any manner the case put forth by the claimants. The only eye witness, who has been examined is PW2, who has deposed that the Tanker lorry was parked on the road without stop parking signals. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20739 MFA No. 2106 of 2017 16. In view of the aforementioned the finding of the Tribunal that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent to an extent of 50% each in causing the accident in question is just and proper. The appellant has failed in demonstrating that the said finding is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered. Hence, the question No.(a) framed for consideration is answered in the negative. Regarding the question No.(b): 17. The deceased was aged 30 years as per the post mortem (Ex.P5). Hence, the multiplier of 17 applied by the Tribunal is just and proper. 18. The claimants stated that the deceased was an agriculturist. However, no documents have been produced to demonstrate the income of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal has assessed the income at `8,000/- p.m. based on the government notification dated 31.5.2010. However, having regard to the date of accident, the notional income of the deceased is re-assed as `9,000/-. The deceased being a bachelor, 50% of his income is required to be deducted towards personal expenses, and 40% is required to be added towards - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20739 MFA No. 2106 of 2017 `future prospects' in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranaysethi and others4. Hence, the loss of dependency is re-assessed as (6,300 x 12 x 17) = `12,85,200/- as against `12,24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 19. The claimants, being the parents of the deceased, the loss of consortium is to be assessed in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranaysethi and others5 & Magma General Insurance Co. -vs- Nanu Ram and ors.6 at `40,000/- each together with escalation at 20%. Hence, the loss of consortium is re-assessed as (48,000 x 2) = `96,000/- 20. The compensation towards `loss of estate' and `funeral expenses' is required to be re-assessed at `15,000/- each together with escalation at 20%. Hence, the 4 AIR 2017 SC 5157 5 AIR 2017 SC 5157 6 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20739 MFA No. 2106 of 2017 compensation towards `loss of estate' and `funeral expenses' is awarded as `18,000/- each. 21. Having regard to the fact that the compensation towards loss of consortium, the loss of estate and funeral expenses having been re-assessed as above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on various heads i.e. funeral expenses, transportation of dead body, loss of estate and loss of love and affection is set aside. 22. Accordingly, the total compensation under various heads is re-assessed as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (`) Amount awarded by this Court (`) 1. Loss of dependency 12,24,000.00 12,85,200.00 2. Funeral and obsequies 10,000.00 18,000.00 3. Transportation of dead body etc. 5,000.00 18,000.00 4. Loss of estate 1,00,000.00 5. Love of affection 2,00,000.00 6. Loss of consortium 96,000.00 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20739 MFA No. 2106 of 2017 Total 15,39,000.00 14,17,200.00 23. The appellant was fastened the liability to pay 50% awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal having awarded the compensation of `15,39,000/-, the appellant was required to pay compensation of `7,69,500/- together with interest at 8% p.a. 24. In view of re-assessment of compensation as above, the appellant shall be liable to pay 50% of compensation as re-assessed above i.e. a sum of `7,08,600/- 25. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal insofar as the compensation payable by the appellant is re-assessed at 7% p.a. by taking judicial notice of the interest awarded on fixed deposit. 26. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part; ii) The judgment and award dated 6.1.2016 passed in MVC No.903/2015 by the learned I Senior Civil Judge and IV MACT at Chitradurga, is modified to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20739 MFA No. 2106 of 2017 the extent of holding that the appellant (arrayed as respondent No.4 before the Tribunal) shall be liable to pay the compensation of `7,08,600/- together with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of judgment. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remain unaltered; iii) The amount of deposit by the appellant together with records of the Tribunal be transmitted to the Tribunal. iv) If the appellant is required to pay any further amount, the same shall be paid within four weeks. vi) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly. v) No costs. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 104