- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB MFA No. 100830 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100830 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.HALAMMA W/O. SHIVAPPA VADDAR, AGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: APINAKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. KUMRI.RANJITHA D/O. SHIVAPPA VADDAR, AGE: 12 YEARS,OCC: STUDENT, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1, R/O: APINAKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. 3. KUMARI.ANITHA D/O. SHIVAPPA VADDAR, AGE: 11 YEARS,OCC: STUDENT, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1, R/O: APINAKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR,DIST: HAVERI. 4. SMT.HANUMAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA VADDAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: APINAKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH. L. HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI, PATIL M. H. ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS) - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB MFA No. 100830 of 2016 AND: 1. SHIVANANDAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA, AGE: MAJOR,OCC: AGRICULTURE, (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING RE. NO.KA-15/K-2189), R/O: BILKI, TQ: SIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA. 2. MANOHAR @ MANU S/O. PALAKSHAPPA ATTIKATTI, AGE: 31 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE, (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO.KA-15/K-2189) R/O: BILKI, TQ: SIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA. 3. PALAKSHAPPA S/O. BASAVARAJAPPA ATTIKATTI, AGE: 60 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BILKI, TQ: SIKARIPUR,DIST: SHIVAMOGGA. 4. MAHENDRA S/O. PALAKSHAPPA ATTIKATTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, (DRIVER OF KA-15/K-3115C.T.100) R/O: BILKI, TQ: SIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. B. MUTALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988, PRAYING TO, ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ALSO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD BY HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 WAS EXCLUSIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT AND 100% NEGLIGENCE IS TO BE FIXED ON HIM AND THE ENTIRE LIABILITY IS TO BE FIXED AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS INSTEAD OF 30% AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB MFA No. 100830 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) This appeal is by the claimants in MVC No.160/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hirekerur [for short ‘the Tribunal’]. The Tribunal has allowed the claimants petition by the impugned judgment and award dated 27.01.2016 granting a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 10,75,000-00 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000-00 3. Towards transportation of the dead body and funeral Rs. 10,000-00 4. Towards loss of estate Rs. 20,000-00 5. Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000-00 Total Rs. 11,55,000-00 2. Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, the learned counsel for the claimants, is categorical that the claimants do not dispute the quantum but they are aggrieved by the Tribunal’s conclusion that they must receive 30% of the compensation as the deceased had also contributed to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB MFA No. 100830 of 2016 accident, and that his contribution is 70%. The learned counsel, inviting this Court’s attention to the Tribunal’s findings that there was a road accident on 15.11.2008 involving three motorcycles and that the deceased Sivappa was riding one of these motorcycles, canvasses that the Tribunal, in the claim competitions [MVC Nos.28, 29 and 30 of 2010] filed by the other claimants/victims, has opined that the contributory negligence was 50%, but in the present case it has opined that the deceased was negligent to a greater extent. 3. The Tribunal’s finding in this regard reads as under: “17. On perusal of the materials on record, reveals that, accident has occurred in between three motor-cycles. The deceased was also one of the rider of the motor cycle. The Judgment in MVC.No.28, 29 and 30/10 clearly reveals that, the deceased was held responsible for the accident, even the another rider was also held responsible for the said accident. In the instant case, it can be seen that, it was the deceased who went in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB MFA No. 100830 of 2016 high speed in a rash and negligent manner and collided to the motorcycle that was coming from opposite direction, and that resulted in the collision of the said motor cycle with the another motorcycle. Therefore, it reveals that, the negligence of the deceased is of a higher degree when compare to the other riders. In the said MVC.No.28, 29 and 30/10 the L.Rs of the deceased Shivappa were made as respondent and the Judgment is passed against them wherein contributory negligence is taken as 50%. This judgment is not challenged by the respondents i.e., the petitioners in this case. It reveals that, deceased collided to one motorcycle, that in turn collided to another motorcycle. Therefore, under these circumstances, I hold that, it is due to the contributory negligence of the deceased, this accident has occurred and as such, his contribution towards this accident is to an extent of 70%. Respondent No.1, 2, 4 and 5 being the riders and owners are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, my finding on the above issue is partly in the affirmative.” 4. Sri.S.B.Muttalli, the learned counsel for the respondents who are held jointly and severally responsible - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB MFA No. 100830 of 2016 to pay the compensation, is heard in the light of the afore. This Court must opine that if the Tribunal, in the claim petition arising out of the same accident, has concluded on appreciation of same evidence that the riders had equally contributed to the accident, this Court must opine that, unless there was extraordinary circumstances, the contributory negligence in the present case could not have at a higher percentage. The Tribunal’s reasoning does not indicate any such circumstance and the learned counsel for the respondents is also unable to point out such circumstance. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The appeal is allowed in part. [B] The Tribunal’s finding that the claimants would be entitled to 30% of ₹11,55,000/- is modified and the claimants are held to be entitled to 50% of such amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB MFA No. 100830 of 2016 [C] The Registry is directed to draw award accordingly. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PJ/CT-vg LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10