- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5633 OF 2010 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6526 OF 2010 (MV) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6527 OF 2010 (MV) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6528 OF 2010 (MV) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6529 OF 2010 (MV) IN MFA NO.5633/2010 BETWEEN 1 . SMT K SUPRAJA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O LATE N. PRASHANTH @ N PRASHANTH REDDY 2 . SMT. N. JYOTHI @ N. JYOTHEESWARI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O LATE N. DORESWAMY REDDY, BOTH R/AT NO.B-4, SCION HOMES, 4TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE 560093 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI P B RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SHRI N RAJAGOPAL S/O NARAYANASWAMY, MAJOR IN AGE FLAT NO.102, SAI NIVAS, Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS FIRST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE 560093 2 . M/S CELSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD. PRESTIGE BLUE CHIP, BLOCK-III, NO.9, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE 560029. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3 . ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MANGALYA PUNARBHAV, 2ND FLOOR, 132, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE 560025 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 4 . ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVA KUMAR H, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI D VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DT.01.06.2022) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.3.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.7245/2005 ON THE FILE OF XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. IN MFA NO.6526/2010 BETWEEN ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE,MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ...APPELLANT (BY SRI D VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SMT K SUPRAJA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI N PRASHANTH @ N PRASHANTH REDDY, R/O B-4, SCION HOMES, 4TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, C.V RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE 560093 2 . SRI N RAJAGOPAL S/O NARAYANASWAMY FLAT NO.102, SAI NIVAS, FIRST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, C.V RAMAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE 560093 3 . M/S CELSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD PRESTIGE BLUE CHIP, BLOCK-III, NO.9, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE 560029 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 4 . M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD "MAANGALYA PUNARBHAV" 2ND FLOOR, 132, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE 560025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P B RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI SHIVAKUMAR H, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.03.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.7114/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.6,12,900/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN THE TRIBUNAL AND ETC. IN MFA NO.6527/2010 BETWEEN ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ...APPELLANT (BY SRI D VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SMT K SUPRAJA W/O SRI LATE SRI.N.PRASHANTH @ N.PRASHANTH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 2. SMT.N.JYOTHI @ N.JYOTHEESWARI W/O LATE SRI.N.DORESWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O B-4, SCION HOMES, 4TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 093 3 . SRI.N.RAJAGOPAL S/O NARAYANASWAMY FLAT NO.102, SAI NIVAS FIRST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 093 4 . M/S CELSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD. PRESTIGE BLUE CHIP - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS BLOCK-III, NO.9, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 5 . ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD "MAANGALYA PUNARBHAV" 2ND FLOOR, 132, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P B RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI SHIVAKUMAR H, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4 SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.3.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.7245/2005 ON THE FILE OF XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.16,82,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT AND ETC. IN MFA No.6528/2010 BETWEEN ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ...APPELLANT (BY SRI D VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SMT N JYOTHI @ N JYOTHEESWARI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI N DORESWAMY R/O B-4, SCION HOMES, 4TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, C.V RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE 560093 2 . SRI N RAJAGOPAL - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS S/O NARAYANASWAMY FLAT NO. 102, SAI NIVAS, FIRST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, C.V RAMAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE 560093 3 . M/S CELSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD PRESTIGE BLUE CHIP, BLOCK-III, NO.9, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE 560029 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 4 . ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD "MAANGALYA PUNARBHAV" 2ND FLOOR, 132, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE 560025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P B RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI SHIVAKUMAR H, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.03.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.8917/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,75,630/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT AND ETC. IN MFA No.6529/2010 BETWEEN ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ...APPELLANT (BY SRI D VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS AND 1 . SMT N JYOTHI @ N JYOTHEESWARI W/O LATE SRI.N.DORESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2 . SRI.N.ESWAR PRASAD REDDY S/O LATE SRI.N.DORESWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O.B-4, SCION HOMES 4TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR C.V.RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 093 3 . SRI.N.RAJAGOPAL S/O NARAYANASWAMY FLAT NO.102, SAI NIVAS, FIRST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 093 4 . M/S CELSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD PRESTIGE BLUE CHIP BLOCK-III, NO.9, HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE - 560 029 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 5 . ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD "MAANGALYA PUNARBHAV" 2ND FLOOR, 132, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P B RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI SHIVAKUMAR H, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4 SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.3.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.8918/2005 ON THE FILE OF XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,10,720/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT AND ETC. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, POONACHA.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The above appeals are filed challenging the common judgment and award dated 8.3.2010 passed by the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru.1 The details of appeals, claim petitions, etc., are as under: Sl. No. MFA Nos. Appeal by MVC Nos. Rank before the Tribunal 1 5633/2010 Claimant 7245/2005 Claimant 2 6526/2010 APSRTC 7114/2005 Respondent No.4 3 6527/2010 APSRTC 7245/2005 Respondent No.4 4 6528/2010 APSRTC 8917/2005 Respondent No.4 5 6529/2010 APSRTC 8918/2005 Respondent No.4 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their ranks before the Tribunal. 3. The facts in brief leading to the present appeals are that on 27.6.2005 one Doreswamy Reddy and his wife Smt.N.Jyothi along with their son Sri N.Prashanth @ N.Prashanth Reddy2 and daughter-in-law Smt.Supraja were returning from Tirupathi in car bearing registration No.KA-04- MD-808 which was being driven by one Sri Rajagopal. At about 8.45 pm., when the said car reached near Gandlapalli Bus Stop, on the Chittoor – Palamaner road, it hit against a parked Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation3 bus bearing registration No.AP-10-Z-5241. In the said accident, Doreswamy Reddy and N.Prashanth @ N.Prashanth Reddy died. It is the contention of the claimants that the bus was negligently parked in the tar road without parking lights. It was alleged that both the driver of the car and driver of the bus were negligent in causing the accident. Hence, the claim petitions were filed claiming compensation for the death and injuries of the occupants of the car. 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘APSRTC’ - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS 4. The driver, owner and insurer of the car were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively and the owner of the APSRTC bus was arrayed as respondent No.4 before the Tribunal. 5. The first respondent did not file statement of objections. The second respondent/owner of the car filed statement of objections admitting that it was the owner of the car and that car was insured with the third respondent/insurer and hence the insurer is liable to pay the compensation, if any, awarded. The other averments in the claim petitions were denied. It was contended that the accident occurred due to collision between two vehicles and due to contributory negligence of the APSRTC bus. 6. The third respondent/insurer of the car filed statement of objections denying the assertions made in the claim petitions. It is further specifically contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. The other averments made in the claim petitions were also denied. 7. The fourth respondent/APSRTC in its statement of objections has denied the assertions made in the claim - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS petitions. It is further specifically contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car and that the driver of the bus was not in any manner negligent in causing the accident in question. 8. All the claim petitions were tried together by the Tribunal. The claimant in MVC No.7114/2005 and claimant No.1 in MVC No.7245/2005 was examined as PW.1; the claimant in MVC No.8917/2005 and claimant No.1 in MVC No.8918/2005 was examined as PW.2; and a Chartered Accountant was examined as PW.3. Exs.P1 to P58 have been marked in evidence. RWs.1 to 7 were examined on behalf of the respondents. Exs.R1 to R25 have been marked in evidence. The Tribunal held that the driver of the car was negligent to an extent of 70% and driver of the bus was negligent to an extent of 30% in causing the accident in question. Further, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation as follows: MVC No. Compensation Death/injury 7245/2005 16,82,000/- Death 7114/2005 6,12,900/- Injury 8917/2005 1,75,630/- Injury 8918/2005 4,10,720/- Death - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS 9. Being aggrieved, the claimants in MVC No.7245/2005 have filed MFA No.5633/2010. The other appeals have been filed by the APSRTC. 10. Sri D.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the APSRTC assailing the finding of the Tribunal on negligence contends that the driver of the car was solely negligent in causing the accident in question having regard to the fact that the bus was stopped at the scheduled place i.e., at the bus stop at the extreme left hand side of the road and the driver of the car did not maintain the safe distance, as a result of which, the accident has occurred. Reference has been made to the averments made in the claim petitions, cross-examination of the PW.2 as well as the grounds raised by the APSRTC in the memorandum of appeals. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nishan Singh & Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,4. 11. Learned counsel Sri O.Mahesh, appearing for the insurer of the car contends that the requirement of maintaining the safe distance between the bus and the car would not apply since the vehicles were not moving. It is further contended 4 (2018) 6 SCC 765 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS that RW.4/driver of the bus in the cross-examination has admitted that the parking lights of the bus were put off. Hence, the learned counsel justifies the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 12. Learned counsel Sri P.B.Raju, appearing for the appellants/claimants in MFA No.5633/2010 (MVC No.7245/2005) submits that the appellants/claimants are not aggrieved by the finding on negligence recorded by the Tribunal and seeks for enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded. 13. The submissions of learned counsels appearing for the parties have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are: i. Whether the finding on negligence recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered with? ii. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.7245/2005 needs to be enhanced? Reg. question No.(i): 14. In the claim petitions it is averred that the driver of the car was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and hit - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS against the bus which was parked negligently on the tar road without the parking lights. It is further averred that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car and the negligent parking by the driver of the bus without switching on the parking lights. It is specifically averred that the accident has occurred due to the composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. 15. It is noticed that the complaint has been lodged by the driver of the bus and in the said complaint he has stated that he has stopped the bus fully on the mud road and when the passengers were deboarding, he heard a loud sound of some vehicle hitting the bus from back side and he noticed that the car had hit the bus at the hind side. It is noticed by the Tribunal that RW.4/driver of the bus has admitted in his cross- examination that the lights of the bus had been put off. Further, PW.2 who is also an injured eye-witness in the examination-in-chief had specifically deposed that the bus was negligently parked without the parking lights being put on. 16. It is relevant to note that the accident occurred at 8.45 p.m., at night. Admittedly, the bus was stopped at the left hand side of the road. It is further forthcoming that the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS parking lights of the bus were switched off. The sketch (Ex.P4) also discloses that the bus was parked on the road and the width of the road was 40 feet. 17. PWs.1 and 2 are the injured claimants as well as the legal representatives of the deceased who were travelling in the car at the time of the accident. In the affidavits by way of examination-in-chief, they have deposed regarding the manner of occurrence of the accident in tune with the averments made in the claim petitions. It is further stated that the road was 40 to 50 feet in width. The said witnesses have been cross- examined at length as to the manner of occurrence of the accident as well as the location of the place of the accident and the surrounding areas. The driver and conductor of the bus have been examined as RWs.4 and 5 respectively and the passengers of the bus have been examined as RWs.6 and 7. 18. The testimony of PWs.1 and 2 who are occupants of the car is relevant as they are the best eye-witnesses rather than the driver, conductor and passengers of the bus (RWs.4 to 7) since the car is stated to have hit the bus from the hind portion. Admittedly, the bus was stopped without the parking lights being switched on. Hence, it cannot be said that the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS driver of the bus was not negligent in causing the accident in question. 19. Having regard to the fact that admittedly the parking lights of the bus were not switched on when the same was parked, it is relevant to notice the judgment in the case of The General Manager, ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins., Co.Ltd., v. Rajendrasingh5 , wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court considering a similar fact situation held as follows: “18. Whether the driver of the offending lorry could have parked the vehicle on the left side of the road without switching on the parking lights, takes us to an examination of Sections 117 and 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads thus: “117. Parking places and halting stations. — The State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned, determine places at which motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may determine the places at which public service vehicles may stop for a longer time than is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers. 122. Leaving vehicle in dangerous position— No person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any public place in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to 5 ILR 2016 KAR 1409 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS other users of the public place or to the passengers.” Rule 109 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 provides for ‘parking light’ and reads thus: 109. Parking light. Every construction equipment vehicle and every motor vehicle other than motor cycles and three wheeled invalid carriages shall be provided with one white or amber parking light on each side in the front. In addition to the front lights, two red parking lights one on each side in the front. In addition to the front lights, two red parking lights one on each side in the rear shall be provided. The front and rear parking lights shall remain lit even when the vehicle is kept stationary on the road: Provided that these rear lamps can be the same as the rear lamps referred to in the rule 105 sub-rule (2): Provided also that construction equipment vehicles, which are installed with flood light lamps or sport lights at the front, rear or side of the vehicle for their off-highway or construction operations, shall have separate control for such lamps or lights and these shall be permanently switched-off when the vehicle is travelling on the road.” 19. In the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions, the offending lorry when not parked at a notified parking place or halting station, and the driver having left the vehicle in a dangerous position likely to cause danger or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place, coupled with the fact, that parking lights were not lit when the vehicle was kept stationary on the road; a mandate of Rule 109 of the Rules, there can be no more doubt that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS was negligent in parking the lorry on the road put to use by other motor vehicles, the cause of accident.” 20. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for APSRTC on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nishan Singh4 will not aid its case since the bus was stationary and the question of car maintaining a “sufficient distance” in terms of Regulation No.23 of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989, does not arise since the said Regulation No.23 which is extracted in the judgment clearly stipulates a fact situation where both the vehicles were moving. 21. Although it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel appearing for APSRTC that in the cross- examination of PW.2 by the insurer of the car a suggestion is put that the driver of the car was negligent in causing the accident, the said admission alone will not be sufficient to hold that the driver of the bus was not negligent in causing the accident and the said statement is required to be appreciated along with the other material available on record. Moreover such truncated stray suggestion does not amount to an admission of the party. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS 22. The Tribunal upon an appreciation of the entire material on record has held that the driver of the car was negligent to an extent of 70% and the driver of the bus to an extent of 30%. In the facts of the present case, having regard to the fact that the bus was stopped at the time of the accident without the parking lights being switched on and the car hit the bus from the hind portion, the finding of the Tribunal that the drivers of the car and bus are negligent to the extent of 70% and 30% respectively is just and proper. The APSRTC has failed in demonstrating that the said finding is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with as being contrary to any specific oral or documentary material on record. Hence, question No.(i) is answered in the negative. Reg. question No.(ii): 23. Quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.7245/2005 (MFA No.5633/2010): i. It is forthcoming that the deceased was aged 28 years and had completed his diploma in Civil Engineering. The deceased was said to be a partner of M/s. United Builders and M/s. Scion Construction. The Tribunal, noticing the material on - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS record has held that the income-tax returns produced by the claimants (Exs.P39 to P44) have not been filed during the lifetime of the deceased and no material has been produced to show that the deceased was a proprietor/partner of M/s. Scion Constructions and M/s. United Builders. Though the Chartered Accountant has been examined as PW.3, no documents have been produced to prove the income of the deceased except the income-tax returns that have been filed after the death of the deceased. The Tribunal, considering the material on record has assessed the income of the deceased at `12,000/- p.m., and applied the multiplier of 17. Having regard to the fact that no material has been produced evidencing the income of the deceased and considering the age of the deceased, the assessment of income and the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal are just and proper. ii. Having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi6, 40% of the income is required to be added towards future prospects. Further, the deceased 6 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS being married, 1/3rd is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, the income of the deceased is re- assessed as [`12,000/- + `4800/- (40%) =`16,800/- - `5,600/- (1/3rd) ] `11,200/- and the loss of dependency is re- assessed as (`11,200/-x12x17) `22,84,800/- as against `16,32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. iii. Having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram7 loss of consortium is required to be awarded to each of the claimants at `40,000/- each with escalation at 10%. Hence, loss of consortium is awarded in a sum of (`44,000/-x2) `88,000/-. Compensation towards loss of estate and transportation charges is required to be awarded at `15,000/- each with escalation at 10%. Hence, a sum of `16,500/- each is awarded towards the same. iv. Accordingly, the compensation is re-assessed as follows: 7 2018 (18) SCC 130 - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (`) Compensation awarded by this Court (`) 1 Loss of dependency 16,32,000/- 22,84,800/- 2 Loss of consortium 20,000/- 88,000/- 3 Love and affection 10,000/- 0/- 4 Funeral expenses 10,000/- 16,500/- 5 Loss of estate 10,000/- 16,500/- Total 16,82,000/- 24,05,800/- v. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of `24,05,800/- together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. 24. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i. MFA Nos.6526/2010, 6527/2010, 6528/2010 and 6529/2010 are dismissed. ii. The MFA No.5633/2010 is allowed in part; iii. The claimants in MVC No.7245/2005 are entitled to compensation of `24,05,800/- together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till date of realization; - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:9896-DB MFA No. 5633 of 2010 C/W MFA No. 6526 of 2010 MFA No. 6527 of 2010 AND 2 OTHERS iv. APSRTC shall deposit the balance amount of compensation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; v. The records of the Tribunal and the amount deposited by the APSRTC in the above appeals be transmitted to the Tribunal. SD/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE SD/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1