- 1 - MFA No.10116 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1248 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10116 OF 2018 (MV-D) CONNECTED WITH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1248 OF 2021 (MV-D) IN M.F.A. NO.10116/2018: BETWEEN: THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BHADRAVATHI BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHIMOGGA UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. B.H. ROAD SHIMOGGA-577 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VISHALAKSHI W/O. LATE MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS HOUSEHOLD WORK. 2. GOWRAMMA W/O. PARASHURAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 3. MASTER MANIKANTA MINOR S/O. LATE MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - MFA No.10116 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1248 of 2021 4. KUM. KOMALA MINOR D/O. LATE MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 1 and 1/2 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN, VISHALAKSHI W/O. LATE MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH 30 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD. RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENT OF MATHUR VILLAGE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK. PRESENT RESIDENT OF PANCHAVATI COLONY KESHAVA KRUPA SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 5. HITHESH @ HITHESH KUMAR MEHTA S/O. HEERA CHAND MEHTA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS MEHTA DRUG HOUSE C. N. ROAD, BHADRAVATHI RESIDENT OF H. NO.732 BHOOTHANAGUDI BHADRAVATHI-577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1, SRI RAJARAM S., ADVOCATE, FOR R-2, AND SRI SATEESH CHANDRA K.V., ADVOCATE, FOR R-5) * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27-8-2018 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.342 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & A.M.A.C.T-VI, SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.38,78,295/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. - 3 - MFA No.10116 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1248 of 2021 IN M.F.A. NO.1248/2021: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VISHALAKSHI W/O. LATE MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 2. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. PARASHURAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 3. MASTER MANIKANTA S/O. LATE MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS. 4. KUMARI KOMALA D/O. LATE MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 6 MONTHS. APPELLANT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN/ MOTHER, VISHALAKSHI W/O. LATE MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT MATHUR VILLAGE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK. PRESENT RESIDENT OF PANCHAVATI COLONY NEAR KESHAVA KRUPA SHIVAMOGGA. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAJARAM S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI HITESH @ HITHESH KUMAR MEHTA S/O. HEERA CHAND MEHTA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS MEHTA DRUG HOUSE C. N. ROAD BHADRAVATHI. - 4 - MFA No.10116 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1248 of 2021 RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.732, BHOOTHANAGUDI BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD. BHADRAVATHI BRANCH BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SATEESH CHANDRA K.V., ADVOCATE, FOR R-1, AND SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2) * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27-8-2018, PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.342 OF 2017, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.M.A.C.T- VI, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.09.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) As these two appeals are arising out of common judgment and award of the Tribunal, they have been heard together and disposed off by this common judgment. - 5 - MFA No.10116 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1248 of 2021 2. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.10116 of 2018 is filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle seeking reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground of negligence and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1248 of 2021 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.02.2017 at around 1.00 p.m., Sri Manjappa @ Manjunath (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was proceeding in his motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA-17 Q-5360, along with Sri Krishnamurthy as a pillion rider on B.H. Road and when they reached near Shivamogga Sugar Factory, at the time, the driver of a car, bearing Registration No.KA-06 M-9684, came from Bhadravathi towards Shivamogga in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the rider of the motorcycle sustained severe injuries and - 6 - MFA No.10116 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1248 of 2021 succumbed to the injuries on the same day and the pillion rider also sustained injuries. This led to registration of an F.I.R. and investigation. Hence, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.38,78,295/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company and the claimants have filed these appeals. 5. Sri O. Mahesh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, vehemently contended that, at the time of accident, the deceased was taking U-turn and he was responsible to cause of said accident, but the Tribunal saddled negligence to an extent of 40% on the deceased, instead of 80%, as the deceased was major contributor to cause of accident in question, by taking U-turn, with a pillion rider, without keeping a watch for the movements of vehicles plying on Highway and with utter disregard for Rule 12 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, and in contravention of Sections 129 and 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further, the Tribunal - 7 - MFA No.10116 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1248 of 2021 ought to have seen the imprudent rash as well as sheer negligence and ghastly act of the deceased, rider of the motorcycle, who caused grievous injuries to the driver and other two occupants of the car, as evident from the contents of Ex.P6-complaint. In so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, he submits that the Tribunal has awarded high and exorbitant compensation on the conventional heads. Hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal. 6. Sri Rajaram S., learned counsel for the claimants, vehemently contended that the Tribunal has not awarded fair and reasonable compensation under the conventional heads. Hence, he prays for enhancement of the compensation. 7. Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 8. There is no dispute regarding the death of the deceased and injuries sustained by the pillion rider in a road traffic accident. The Insurance Company has taken contention that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and therefore, the liability should also be fastened on the insurer of the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, - 8 - MFA No.10116 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1248 of 2021 the following points arise for our consideration in these appeals: i. Whether the Insurance Company proved that accident occurred solely on account of negligence on the part of the deceased, rider of the motorcycle? ii. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement, or reduction? 9. In order to prove the negligence aspect of the deceased, rider of the motorcycle, the driver of the car or insurer of the car has not examined any of the witnesses. However, the evidence of PW2-Krishnamurthy, pillion rider, who was an eyewitness and injured witness, is available. As per the contents of the charge-sheet, the driver of the car is solely liable for the accident. As per the contents of Ex.P6-complaint, the deceased and PW2 after taking U-turn at the spot of the accident and Ex.P7-Rough Sketch, it clearly transpires that the car was proceeding from Bhadravathi to Shivamogga on National Highway and at the place of accident, the rider of the motorcycle suddenly took U-turn, which resulted in accident. From perusal of the contents of Ex.P8-the Motor Vehicles Accident Report, the motorcycle sustained damages i.e. head - 9 - MFA No.10116 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1248 of 2021 light damaged, left hand side both indicators damaged, chassis damaged, front shock absorber assembly damaged, right hand side fuel tank damaged, and engine assembly displaced. These damages clearly demonstrate that there is every possibility, the deceased after taking U-turn, entered the road, without observing the oncoming vehicle. Thus, the car dashed against the motorcycle. Similarly, the car also got damaged i.e. front bumper damaged, front bonnet damaged, right hand side head light assembly damaged, right hand side apron damaged, right hand side shock absorber assembly damaged, right hand side wheel assembly damaged, right hand side door and glasses damaged, and front glass damaged. Therefore, even in the absence of examination of the driver of the car and solely, on the opinion of the Investigating Officer, who filed the charge- sheet against the driver of the car, there are sufficient material to arrive at a conclusion regarding contributory negligence of the deceased. It is a well settled law that the principles of contributory negligence are unknown to criminal law. Further, to prove the contributory negligence, there must be cogent evidence. In the instant case, there is specific evidence to prove that the accident has taken place due to the negligent riding of the deceased motorcyclist. Hence, there is cogent - 10 - MFA No.10116 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1248 of 2021 evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence. The said doctrine of common law can be applied in the present case. Thus, the deceased also contributed in the negligence. Hence, the Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly considered the negligence of the deceased, rider of the motorcycle, at 40% and the driver of car at 60%, which is fair and reasonable and no interference is called for in that regard. 10. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants have taken contention that the deceased was doing real estate business and he was also a carpenter and earning Rs.10 lakh to Rs.15 lakh per annum. The Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased at 32 years, has applied '16' multiplier and there are four claimants i.e. mother, wife and two minor children and therefore, rightly deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and rightly considered the average monthly income at Rs.49,335/-. 11. The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding a fair compensation under the head of 'loss of consortium'. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the said head, which is on lower side. In view of the ratio laid down in - 11 - MFA No.10116 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1248 of 2021 MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head 'loss of consortium'. Thus, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,60,000/- (four dependants) under the said head. 12. Further, Rs.63,93,824/- towards 'loss of dependency', Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses' awarded by the Tribunal are maintained. 13. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation: HEADS Rs. Loss of dependency 63,93,824.00 Loss of estate 15,000.00 Funeral expenses 15,000.00 Loss of consortium 1,60,000.00 TOTAL 65,83,824.000 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (100%) 64,63,824.00 TOTAL 1,20,000.00 Less: Negligence contributed by the deceased at 40% 48,000.00 ENHANCED COMPENSATION 72,000.00 14. In the result, we pass the following: - 12 - MFA No.10116 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1248 of 2021 O R D E R i. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.10116 of 2018 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. ii. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1248 of 2021 filed by the claimants is allowed-in-part. iii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.72,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation. Hence, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.39,50,295/- (Rs.38,78,295/- awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.72,000/- enhanced compensation by this Court). iv. The United Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest within six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 13 - MFA No.10116 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1248 of 2021 v. Apportionment, disbursement, and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal. vi. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith. vii. Draw a modified award accordingly. viii. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with its records to the Tribunal, forthwith. In view of the disposal of the appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed off. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK