- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6375 MFA No. 8198 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8198 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 2. NAYANA S., D/O MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. 3. KISHORE M.P., S/O MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS. APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER 1ST APPELLANT ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.281, 4TH CROSS, SIDDARTHA NAGARA, MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KANTHARAJU K.E., S/O EREGOWDA, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.711, 2ND CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6375 MFA No. 8198 of 2023 2. THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, SOUTHERN PORTION EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.C.BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.08.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.2637/2022 BY XIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, ACMM AND MEMBER- MACT, BENGALUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 03.10.2023 passed in MVC.No.2637/2022 by the Court of XIV Additional Small Causes Judge, ACMM and Member-MACT, Bengaluru (for short ‘the tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6375 MFA No. 8198 of 2023 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 04.04.2022 at about 5.45 p.m., the deceased Prema was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09-HM-8917 as a pillion rider, when she reached near C.A.Kere gate, Maddur-Malavalli road, C.A.Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya district, at that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-05-NB-6840 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of deceased, leading to the occurrence of the accident. Due to the said impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injures and succumbed to the said injuries. Hence, the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation. 3.1 On service of notice, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their respective written statements, denying the averments made in the claim - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6375 MFA No. 8198 of 2023 petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition on the ground that the deceased, along with another person, was riding the motorcycle without wearing helmet and violated the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), by not having valid insurance for the motorcycle and contributed to the occurrence of the accident. 3.2 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.22,52,700/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and fixed the contributory negligence as against the deceased at 30% and directed the respondent-Insurance Company to pay 70% of the compensation amount. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6375 MFA No. 8198 of 2023 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the tribunal has awarded inadequate and meager compensation, which calls for interference. The tribunal has committed a gross error in fixing the contributory negligence as against the rider of the motorcycle, whereas the deceased was a pillion rider and also on the ground that the rider did not have a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the occurrence of the accident. 4.1 Learned counsel for appellants contends that though the charge sheet has been filed against the rider of the motorcycle, there is no single averment with regard to the contributory negligence in occurrence of the accident apart from stating that the rider did not have a valid and effective driving license and insurance to be paid and was not wearing helmet. Learned counsel further contends that filing of the charge sheet is not the ground that can deprive the appellants from getting the compensation in the motor vehicles accident case. The rider and the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6375 MFA No. 8198 of 2023 deceased would be liable to payment of penalty and imprisonment, if the criminal prosecution case succeeds on its merits. Therefore, when no material is placed by the respondents before the Court that the deceased has contributed to the occurrence of the accident, liability cannot be fixed. Learned counsel for appellants relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Palariya v/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in LAWS(SC)-2018-8-172. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal and consequently enhance the compensation and set aside the contributory negligence fastened on the rider. 5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Insurance Company vehemently contends that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is based on the materials placed on record by taking into consideration the cognizance and filing of the charge sheet against the deceased and the rider of the motorcycle for not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6375 MFA No. 8198 of 2023 wearing helmet, and for other provisions invoked under Sections 146, 196, 177, 3(1), 128(1) and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for Insurance Company sustains the judgment and award of the tribunal, so also the contributory negligence fastened against the deceased and the rider of the motorcycle to be correct. He also contends that the income and other compensation awarded is just and reasonable, which does not call for interference. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for appellant- claimant and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and death having occurred due to the road traffic accident are all established and proved by the production of Exs.P1 to P12. The negligence has been rightly attributed against the driver of the car and so also some provisions of the Act are invoked against the rider of the motorcycle. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6375 MFA No. 8198 of 2023 7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income and appropriate multiplier to be adopted, it is stated that the income taken by the tribunal is Rs.12,500/- per month as notional income, no documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show the income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.15,500/- for the accident of the year 2022. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.15,500/-. The age of the deceased was 39 years at the time of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at ‘15’, which does not call for interference. The tribunal has rightly awarded 40% in addition to the income as future prospects and deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, which also do not call for interference and the same are retained. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.26,04,060/- (Rs.15,500/- + 40% = Rs.21,700/- - 1/3rd = Rs.14,467/- x 12 x 15) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.20,99,700/- awarded by the tribunal. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6375 MFA No. 8198 of 2023 8. The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.80,000/- towards loss of filial consortium, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses, which do not call for interference and the same are retained. 9. Now coming to the aspect of the contributory negligence fastened against the rider and deducting 30% from the claimants, this Court is in agreement with the submissions put forth and the judgment relied by the learned counsel for appellants as it is fairly applicable to the present facts of the case, most specifically paragraph 5 in the said judgment, which reads as under: "(5) The finding of the High Court of contributory negligence on the ground that the deceased was driving the vehicle without a driving license is equally unsustainable. Driving without a valid driving license may expose the claimant(s) to other liabilities but no inference of contributory negligence can be arrived on that basis." - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6375 MFA No. 8198 of 2023 10. There are no averments or findings or evidence or any materials before the tribunal to show that the deceased had contributed to the occurrence of the accident. The tribunal has committed a gross error in not taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was a pillion rider and not the rider. Therefore, the question of saddling contributory negligence as against the deceased is out of question, it is not applicable to the present facts of the case. Even otherwise, if at all there was any contributory negligence, the same ought to have been proved and established by the respondents, which has not been done in the case on hand. Under the circumstances, 30% contributory negligence fastened against the deceased is set aside. 11. In view of the above, the claimants shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.27,57,060/- as against Rs.22,52,700/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 26,04,060-00 Loss of consortium 40,000-00 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6375 MFA No. 8198 of 2023 Loss of filial consortium 80,000-00 Loss of estate 16,500-00 Transportation of dead body funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses 16,500-00 TOTAL 27,57,060-00 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award dated 03.10.2023 passed in MVC.No.2637/2022 by the Court of XIV Additional Small Causes Judge, ACMM and Member-MACT, Bengaluru, is modified; iii) The claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.27,57,060/- as against Rs.22,52,700/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.; iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6375 MFA No. 8198 of 2023 v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal are undisturbed and retained; vi) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith. vii) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN CT: BHK