- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MFA NO. 101978 OF 2018 (MV) C/W. MFA NO. 101979 OF 2018 (MV-D) MFA NO. 102765 OF 2018 (MV-D) & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 (MV-D IN MFA NO. 101978 OF 2018 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR 3217, MATRU CHAYA, BUS STAND ROAD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAXMAN S/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KAITNAL, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 2. SMT. RUKMAVVA W/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KAITNAL, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 3. MALLAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA KITTUR, AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 R/O. MAKKALAGERI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 4. ASHOK S/O. SIDDAPPA POTALL, AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAITANAL, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SANTOSH HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MVC NO.1204/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK, AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1204/2016, ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK AND ETC. IN MFA NO. 101979 OF 2018 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR 3217, MATRU CHAYA, BUS STAND ROAD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAXMAN S/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KAITNAL, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 2. SMT. RUKMAVVA W/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KAITNAL, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI- 591307. 3. MALLAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA KITTUR AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAKKALAGERI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 4. ASHOK S/O. SIDDAPPA POTALI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KAITANAL, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SANTOSH HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MVC NO.1205/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK, AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1205/2016, ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK AND ETC. IN MFA NO. 102765 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. LAXMAN S/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. KAITANAL, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591320. 2. SMT. RUKMAVVA W/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KAITANAL, TAL: GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI-591320. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA KITTUR, AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAKKALAGERI, TAL: GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI-591323. 2. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., FIRST FLOOR, 3217 MATRUCHAYA, BUS STAND ROAD GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591329. 3. ASHOK SIDDAPPA PATOLI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAITANAL, TAL: GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI-591320. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T GOKAK M.V.C NO.1205/2016 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. LAXMAN S/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O.KAITANAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591320. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 2. SMT. RUKMAVVA W/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KAITANAL, TAL: GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI-591320. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA KITTUR, AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAKKALAGERI, TAL: GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI-591323. 2. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., FIRST FLOOR, 3217 MATRUCHAYA, BUS STAND ROAD GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591329. 3. ASHOK SIDDAPPA PATOLI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAITANAL, TAL:GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591320. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1204/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. Since all these appeals arise out of a common judgment and award dated 3rd February 2018 passed in MVC Nos.1204/2016 and 1205/2016 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). They are taken up together for final disposal. 2. MFA Nos.101978/2018 and 101979/2018 have been filed by the insurer, challenging its liability to pay the compensation. Similarly MFA Nos.102765/218 and 102766/2018 have been filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 4. The claimants in MVC No.1204/2016 are the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Renuka W/o. Laxman Pujeri, and the claimants in MVC - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 No.1205/2016 are the parents of the deceased minor daughter, Kumari Muttewwa. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.KA-25/T-1513 and KA-25/T-435; and respondent No.3 is the owner of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-49/S-2600. 6. Brief facts of the case are that, on 19.01.2016 at around 1:30 p.m. one Ashok Siddappa Potali was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 49/S-2600, carrying three passengers as pillion riders by name Rukmavva, Renuka Pujeri, and her daughter Muttewwa, aged about 2 years, from Kaitanal to Khangoan. When they reached near Rani Chennamma Residential School, the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. Nos.KA-25/T-1513 and KA-25/T-435, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, in which the aforementioned four persons were travelling. As a result of which, all the four - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 persons fell down, Muttewwa as well as Renuka sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment, both of them died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. 7. It is the further case of the claimants in MVC No.1204/2016 that the deceased Renuka was aged about 24 years and was doing animal husbandry, earning Rs.12,000/- per month and was contributing her earnings to the family. Based on these grounds, the claimants have prayed for an award of compensation in a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-. 8. It is contended by the claimants in MVC No.1205/2016 that, the deceased Muttewwa, was aged about 2 years and was a minor. The claimants prayed to award Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. 9. Respondent No.2 – Insurer filed the written statement in both these cases. The contentions are more or less similar, and it has denied all the averments made in the claim petitions. According to the insurer, the accident - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 had occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by Ashok Potali, who was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle. In the alternative, respondent No.2 contended that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the tractor and trailer and their respective contributions are in the ratio of 50:50. Based on these grounds, respondent No.2 prayed for the dismissal of the claim petitions. 10. Respondent No.3 appeared and did not file any objections. Respondent No.1 filed objections, denying the averments made in the claim petitions. It is further stated that, the tractor and trailer were insured with respondent No.2, and if the Tribunal decides that respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation, it shall be the responsibility of respondent No.2 to indemnify the same. 11. The Tribunal framed necessary issues in this regard for its consideration. The Tribunal clubbed both these matters and recorded common evidence. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 12. The claimants examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. The respondents examined one witness as RW1 and got marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2. 13. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and on appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment and award, awarded compensation of Rs.6,91,972/- in favour of the claimants in MVC No.1204/2016 and Rs.5,50,000/- in favour of the claimants in MVC No.1205/2016. 14. Being aggrieved by the same, both the claimants as well as the insurer filed the above said appeals. 15. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer submits that based on the charge sheet and its enclosures, including the Motor Vehicle Inspection report regarding the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 damage to the motorcycle, it is clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. The rider of the motorcycle was carrying four passengers, which is contrary to the permitted limit. Furthermore, the rider of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence to ride such a class of motorcycle. All these facts clearly demonstrate that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and there was no contribution from the driver of the tractor and trailer. 17. The claimants have prevailed over the police authorities and the Police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the tractor alleging that he was responsible for the accident in question. He further contends that alternatively the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the tractor and trailer. He states that based on the evidence and the manner in which the accident occurred, the negligence can be apportioned in the ratio of 50:50. Based - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 on these reasons, learned cousenl prayed that the appeal be allowed. 18. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that according to the charge sheet and its enclosures, the motorcycle was ahead of tractor and trailer. The allegation against the driver of the tractor and trailer is that he moved to the extreme left side of the road and collided with front portion of the motorcycle. As a result, the rider of the motorcycle lost his balance and fell down. There was no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Therefore, the entire negligence of the driver of the tractor and trailer. Accordingly, the Police have rightly charge sheeted the driver of the tractor and trailer for the accident in question. In the alternative, learned counsel also submits that even if this Court considers the possibility that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of both the rider of the motorcycle and driver of the tractor and trailer, the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle is meager and at the most it may be 10%. Therefore, he - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 prayed to consider the aforesaid points and pass appropriate orders. 19. Learned advocate for claimants further contends that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased in MVC No.1204/2016 as Rs.4,000/- per month. However, even if the Tribunal had taken the income as per the chart prepared by KALSA, the income would be Rs.8,750/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has not added future prospects to the income of the deceased. At the time of accident, deceased was below the age of 40 years, and 40% of her income has to be added towards future prospects. Out of which, 1/3rd of the income must be deducted towards personal expenses and the appropriate multiplier applicable is 18. Based on these factors, the compensation could be determined. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads are also meager and requires reconsideration. For these reasons, learned counsel prayed that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 20. Upon the hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the entire liability on the Insurance Company, holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor and trailer? (ii) Whether the claimants in both cases are entitled to an enhancement of compensation? Re: Point No.1: 21. Facts of accident and the involvement of both the vehicles are not in dispute. The manner in which the accident occurred is also not in dispute. The investigating Officer registered FIR, investigated the case and charge sheeted the driver of the tractor and trailer. No allegations are made against the rider of the motorcycle in the charge sheet. The insurer seriously disputes this facts on the ground that rider of the motorcycle was mainly responsible for the accident. He was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. He was carrying - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 three passengers as pillion riders. It is quite natural that, under these circumstances, he must have lost his balance and dashed against the tractor and trailer, leading to the accident. However, the Investigating Officer did not address this issue. The alleged incident has taken place more or less at the middle of the road. Both the drivers of the tractor and trailer as well as the motorcycle were going on the same direction. No damages were caused to the tractor and trailer, which clearly indicates that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. 22. She further contended that the Tribunal held that the driver of the tractor and trailer is responsible for the accident on the basis of the charge sheet filed against him without considering these facts. Therefore, the driver of the tractor and trailer is not responsible for the accident. 23. Looking to the materials on record, there is some merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the insurer. The accident had taken place more of less at the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 middle of the road. Both tractor and trailer as well as the motorcycle were going in the same direction. There were no damage to the tractor and trailer, which is noted in the Mahazar as well as in the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report. Most of the damage caused to the front side as well as the left side of the motorcycle, as per Motor Vehicle Inspection Report. Although insurer called upon respondent No.3 to produce the driving licence of the rider of the motorcycle, same was not produced by the owner i.e., respondent No.3. Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn that the rider of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 24. As per the charge sheet and its enclosures, three major passengers along with one minor girl aged about two years, were travelling on the motorcycle. This might also contributed for the accident in question. It is not the case of the rider of the motorcycle or respondent No.3 that the rider of the motorcycle had valid and effective driving licence, but at the time of accident the same was expired. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 There is no evidence that motorcyclist had knowledge of riding. When no such a case is made out, the manner in which the accident had taken place indicate that the rider of the motorcycle was also negligent and had also contributed for the accident in question. It is also to be kept in mind that driver of the tractor is charge sheeted by the police and he did not challenge the same and facing trial. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contributory negligence of the rider of the motorcycle is assessed at 30% and 70% negligence is attributed to the driver of the tractor and trailer. The Tribunal has not considered these facts and only on the basis of the charge sheet laid against the driver of the tractor and trailer, directed the insurer to pay the compensation, which is erroneous. Therefore, it needs modification. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative. Re: Point No.2: 25. The deceased Renuka said to be aged about 24 years at the time of accident, and the Tribunal has also - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 accepted this fact. It is not in dispute that appropriate multiplier applicable is 18. The claimants have contended that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per months and she was contributing to her family. However, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased Renuka at Rs.4,000/- per month, considering the age, date of accident, etc., the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Even if the chart of the notional income prepared by the KSLSA is considered, the income of a victim of an accident that had taken place during the year 2016 is Rs.8,750/- per month, the same could be applied to the facts of the present case. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1, 40% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects. There are totally two dependants. Therefore 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. On these factors compensatory under the head loss of dependency is 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 re-assessed and quantified at Rs.17,64,000/- (Rs.8,750/- + 40% ÷ 1/3 x 12 x 18). 26. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram & Others2 as well as in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of consortium’. Accordingly, Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2) is awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium, including loss of love and affection’. 27. Further, a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each is awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral and transportation’ respectively. 28. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency (Rs.8,750/- + 40% - 1/3 x 12 x 18) Rs.17,64,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.80,000/- 2 2018 ACJ 2782 - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 3. Loss of estate. Rs.15,000/- 4. funeral expenses. Rs.15,000/- Total: Rs.18,74,000/- 29. Therefore, the claimants in MVC No.1204/2016 are entitled for compensation of Rs.18,74,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against Rs.6,91,972/- awarded by the tribunal. Out of the said amount of compensation, 70% i.e., Rs.13,11,800/- is to be paid by the insurer and the remaining 30% i.e., Rs.5,62,200/- is to be paid by respondent No.3, since the contributory negligence is apportioned in the ratio of 70 : 30. 30. In MVC No.1205/2016, the deceased Kumari Muttewwa was aged about two years at the time of accident. The authority to assess the compensation in the case of death of a minor is Kishan Gopal and Another v. Lala and Others3, wherein it is held that in case of death of a minor below the age of 10 years, the notional income shall be considered as Rs.30,000/- per annum. Considering 3 (2014) 1 SCC 244 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 the age of the deceased, the appropriate applicable multiplier is 15. Therefore loss of dependency is re-assessed and quantified at Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 15 ). Further, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads. In all the claimants in MVC No.1205/2016 are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against Rs.5,50,000/- awarded by the tribunal. Out of the said amount of compensation, 70% i.e., Rs.3,50,000/- is to be paid by the insurer and the remaining 30% i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- is to be paid by respondent No.3, since the contributory negligence is apportioned in the ratio of 70 : 30. 31. For the aforesaid discussions, this Court pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed in part. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 3rd February 2018 passed in MVC Nos.1204/2016 and 1205/2016 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak is modified. (iii) The claimants in MVC No.1204/2016 are entitled for compensation of Rs.18,74,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against Rs.6,91,972/- awarded by the tribunal. Out of the said amount of compensation, 70% i.e., Rs.13,11,800/- shall be paid by the insurer and the remaining 30% i.e., Rs.5,62,200/- shall be paid by respondent No.3, since the contributory negligence is apportioned in the ratio of 70:30. (iv) The claimants in MVC No.1205/2016 are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against Rs.5,50,000/- awarded by the tribunal. Out of the said amount of compensation, 70% i.e., Rs.3,50,000/- is to be paid by the insurer and the remaining 30% i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512 MFA No. 101978 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018 MFA No. 102765 of 2018 & MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 is to be paid by respondent No.3, since the contributory negligence is apportioned in the ratio of 70:30. (v) Respondent - insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of award. (vi) The order of apportionment, deposit and release ordered by the Tribunal shall hold good for the compensation awarded in this appeal. (vii) The Registry to send a copy of this judgment forthwith to the Tribunal, along with TCR. (viii) The Registry to draw award accordingly. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP / CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10