- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION NO. 100033 OF 2018 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103366 OF 2017 IN M.F.A. CRSS OBJECTION NO.100033/2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAXMI W/O. PRAKSH KADAM, AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 2. KUMAR SATISH S/O. PRAKSH KADAM, AGE 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 3. KUMARI DEEPIKA D/O. PRAKSH KADAM, AGE 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 4. SMT. ITABAI @ VITHABAI W/O. SAIDU KADAM, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O. MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587011. THE APPELLANT NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS, R/BY. APPELLANT NO.1 NATURAL MOTHER. - CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, OPPOSITE TO SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, VIJAYAPURA-586101 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, VIJAYAPURA. 2. SHRI. REVANAPPA S/O. DHULAPPA MURATTI, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 AGE 63 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TT UNIT, R/O. JUNNUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. - RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M. C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION IN M.F.A. NO. 103366/2017 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE CROSS OBJECTORS/APPELLANTS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.06.2017 IN M.V.C NO.442/2015 PASSED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL XIV MUDHOL, BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. IN MFA NO. 103366/2017 BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, OPPOSITE TO SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, VIJAYAPUR-586101. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. - APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAXMI W/O. PRAKSH KADAM, AGE 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 2. KUMAR SATISH S/O. PRAKASH KADAM, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 3. KUMARI DEEPIKA D/O. PRAKASH KADAM, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, (THE RESPONDENTS NO. 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE RESPONDENT NO.1). 4. SMT. ITABAI @ VITHABAI, W/O. SAIDU KADAM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHLD WORK, ALL ARE R/O. MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN CODE: 587312. 5. REVANAPPA S/O. DHULAPPA MURUTTI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TT UNIT, R/O. JUNNUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT, PINCODE: 587313. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1; SRI. M. C. HUKKERI, ADV. FOR R5) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.06.2017 BY FIXING THE NEGLIGENCE ISSUE AGAINST THE DECEASED AND ALSO TO MODIFY THE AWARD DATED 15.06.2017 TO REDUCE THE COMPENSATION TO JUST LEVEL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC. THIS M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION AND THE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) These appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 15.06.2017 passed by the MACT-XIV, Mudhol in M.V.C. No. 442/2015. M.F.A. No. 103366/2017 was filed by the insurer challenging quantum and its liability to pay compensation and the M.F.A. CR. OB. No. 100033/2018 was filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 2. It is the case of the claimants that on 01.02.2015 around 11.20 a.m. on Mudhol-Jamakhandi PWD road near Uttur gate, Prakash (the deceased) was going on his motorcycle bearing temporary registration No. KA-29-TS- 2019 towards Jamakhandi. Driver of tractor cum trailor bearing registration No. KA-48-TA-053 and trailers bearing registration No. KA-48-TA-31 and KA-48-TA-320 [for short, ‘offending vehicle’] came from opposite direction in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 a high speed and rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle in which the deceased was proceeding, as a result of which he fell down and sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. The deceased was aged about 40 years, working as an agriculturist as well as Mason and earning Rs.35,000/- per month. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimants No.2 and 3 are the children and the claimant No. 4 is the mother of the deceased. They were depending upon his income. With these reasons they prayed to award compensation of Rs.66,50,000/-. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed the written statement. Respondent No.1 denied all the contents of the claim petition and further denied that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the driver of the tractor and trailor. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2. In any event, if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation then respondent No.2 be directed to pay the same. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 4. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the contents of the claim petition and further contended that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and holding of a valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the tractor cum trailor. It also contended that accident occurred due to negligence of rider of the motorcycle and not due to the driver of the tractor cum trailer. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimants to prove their case examined claimant No.1 as PW1 and marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.7. The respondents examined one witness as RW1 and marked four documents as per Exs.R.1 to R4. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor cum trailor by its driver. The Tribunal assessed age of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 deceased as 40 years, income at Rs.8,000/- per month, added 30% of his assessed income towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th of income towards personal expenses, applied multiplier ‘15’ and calculated the compensation under the head loss of dependency. In all, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.14,39,000/- under following: 1. loss of dependency 14,04,000.00 2. loss of love and affection 20,000.00 3. loss of estate 5,000.00 4. funeral expenses 10,000.00 Total 14,39,000.00 6. Heard arguments. 7. Learned Advocate for the appellant-insurer submits that a perusal of the mahazar as well as map produced by the claimants would reveal that the accident occurred at the wrong side of the road to the rider of the motorcycle. He went to wrong side of the road and hit against the tractor-trailor coming from the opposite direction. The map indicates that accident had taken place due to major contribution of the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 has not considered this point.It is further submitted that petitioners have not produced the driving licence of the rider of the motorcycle, which indicates that he was riding the motorcycle without holding a driving licence. 8. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Age of the deceased was taken as 40 years. The Tribunal has added 30% of the income towards future prospects instead of 25% as per the law laid down by Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in [2017] 13 SCR 100. It is further contended that interest awarded by the Tribunal is also on the higher side. It is just and proper to award interest at 6% p.a. on the amount of compensation. For the above stated reasons prays to allow the appeal and award just and reasonable amount of compensation taking note of the above said contentions. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 9. The learned counsel for the claimants/ cross objectors contends that the Tribunal has appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record and held that accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of the tractor and trailer and it does not call for any interference by this Court. The respondents have not examined the driver of the said tractor and trailer to explain the negligence of the deceased in riding the vehicle. Merely because the rider of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence does not mean that he was negligent in riding the vehicle. He further submits that the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No. 103022/2019 decided on 26.09.2022 (Smt. Roopa and others Vs. Ravindra and another) held that merely because driver of vehicle involved in the accident does not hold the driving licence is not a reason to hold that he was negligent in driving the vehicle. 10. The learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 is not just and reasonable. The Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased properly. The amount of compensation awarded under other heads also not is in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi stated supra. Therefore he prayed to enhance the compensation. 11. The following questions arise for determination. [1] Is Tribunal justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the tractor-trailer? [2] Is the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation? 12. Point No.1: The fact of accident and the death of Prakash due to vehicular accident are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that driver of the tractor-trailer has been chargesheeted for causing the accident. It is true that claimants have not examined any eyewitness to the incident. The Investigating Officer visiting the spot prepared mahazar and map of the spot of the accident. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 Looking to Ex.P.4-Mahazar as well as map of the spot of the accident, it appears the motorcycle went towards the Northern side of the road from the middle of the road (front side to rider of motorcycle) prior to the accident. According to the map the width of the road is 30 feet. There is no explanation as to why the rider of the motorcycle went to wrong side of the road. The claimants have also not produced driving licence of the deceased. In the cross examination, PW1 deposed that her husband had driving licence and she had given it to the Police, but the particulars are not furnished to the Court. She denied suggestion of insurer that her husband had no driving licence. For non production of the relevant records, the Tribunal ought to have taken adverse inference. 13. It is also the duty of the respondents to examine the driver of the tractor to rebut the evidence of PW1 and chargesheet. The driver of the tractor was not examined and he did not come before the Court and stated about the manner in which the accident occurred. Therefore - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 contention of the insurer that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle or major contribution was that of rider of motorcycle is not acceptable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it can be safely held that rider of the motorcycle contributed to an extent of 10% to cause the accident. 14. The decision relied by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in M.F.A. No. 103022/2019 stated supra, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, negligence of the rider of the vehicle was taken at 55% on the sole ground that rider had no driving licence. The Division Bench of this Court held that merely non holding of the driving licence, will amount to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and it does not amount to negligence of a rider or a driver of the vehicle. In this case the rider of the motorcycle was not only holding the driving licence but also he went to wrong side of the road. Considering these facts and circumstances, negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and driver of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 tractor and trailer is apportioned. For these reasons point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative. 15. Point No.2: Undisputedly age of deceased was aged 40 years. The claimants have contended that deceased was earning Rs.35,000/- per month. However, there are no materials to believe the same. The Tribunal took notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month. Even as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of a victim of an accident of the year 2015 could be considered as Rs.8,000/- per month. The same amount was applied to the facts of the present case. 16. The contention of the insurer is that 30% income was added towards instead of 25% instead of 25% as per the las laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (stated supra). The insurer has also relied on the judgment of this Court in M.F.A. No. 101335/2022 dated 18.07.2023 (The Divisional Manager Vs. Smt. Jadiyamma and others) to contend that 25% income shall be added towards future - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 prospects in an accident, if deceased was aged about 40 years. Said submission is acceptable. The Tribunal has erroneously added 30% of income towards future prospects instead of 25%. This needs to be corrected, since the deceased was aged 40 years. It is not in dispute that the multiplier applicable to the facts of the present case is ‘15’. Accordingly, the compensation needs to be recalculated towards loss of dependency. 17. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants, the compensation awarded under the head of loss of estate, love and affection and funeral expenses are not in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in AIR ONLINE 2018 SC 289 and also in the case of Pranay Sethi (referred supra). Hence the said amount also needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, the following amount of compensation is awarded. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 1. loss of dependency 13,50,000.00 2. Loss of consortium 1,60,000.00 3. loss of estate 15,000.00 4. funeral expenses 15,000.00 Total 15,40,000.00 Awarded by the Tribunal 14,39,000.00 Enhancement 1,01,000.00 18. For the above said discussion, point No.2 is partly answered in the affirmative. 19. As discussed in point No.1, the insurer is liable to pay 90% of the compensation, i.e., Rs.13,86,000/-. 20. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that the Tribunal has awarded the rate of interest at 9% p.a. which is on the higher side and prays to reduce the same to 6% p.a. The award of interest is discretion of the Tribunal. The Tribunal exercised its discretion and keeping in mind the judgments of the Apex Court, awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. This Court is not inclined to reduce the interest awarded by the Tribunal. But in respect of enhanced amount of compensation interest is awarded at the rate of at 6% p.a. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 21. For the aforesaid discussions this Court pass following: ORDER [1] The appeal as well as the cross objections are partly allowed. [2] The judgment and award dated 15.06.2017 passed by the MACT-XIV, Mudhol in M.V.C. No. 442/2015 is modified. [3] The claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.15,40,000/- as against Rs.14,39,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. [4] Insurer is directed to deposit 90% of the said amount before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of award. [5] Apportionment, deposit and release of the enhanced compensation amount shall be as per the award of the Tribunal. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5409 MFA.CROB No. 100033 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 103366 of 2017 Whatever amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Send back Trial Court Records with copy of judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVV /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11