- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37278-DB MFA No. 7247 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1174 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH 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. 7247 OF 2018 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1174 OF 2020 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 7247/2018 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.144, 2ND FLOOR, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O. CHANDRAPPA G.T., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. CHANDRAPPA G.T., S/O. G.R.THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. PRASANNA G.C., S/O CHANDRAPPA G.T., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37278-DB MFA No. 7247 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1174 of 2020 R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT GEJJEGONDANAHALLI, (VILLAGE & POST), AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228. 4. RAMANI, W/O. UMAPATHI, R/O. NO.14/2,MURUGAN TRADING COMPANY, 2ND MAIN, APMC YARD, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-560022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATHEESH H.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.7608/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & MEMBER OF MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-15), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.31,32,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 1174/2020 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O. CHANDRAPPA G.T., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. CHANDRAPPA G.T., S/O. G.R.THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 3. PRASANNA G.C., S/O CHANDRAPPA G.T., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT GEJJEGONDANAHALLI, (VILLAGE & POST), AJJAMPURA HOBLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37278-DB MFA No. 7247 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1174 of 2020 TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SATHEESH H.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMANI, W/O. UMAPATHI, R/O. NO.14/2,MURUGAN TRADING COMPANY, 2ND MAIN, APMC YARD, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-560022. 2. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.144, 2ND FLOOR, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 16.09.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.7608/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER OF MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37278-DB MFA No. 7247 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1174 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and learned counsel for the claimants. 2. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7247/2018 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 01.06.2018 in MVC No.7608/2016 passed by the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-15) (for short 'the Tribunal') on the ground of contributory negligence and quantum. Whereas, Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1174/2020 is filed by the appellants - Claimants seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, a claim petition was filed with regard to the death of Praveen G.C.(herein after referred to as 'the deceased'). On 15.11.2016 deceased was proceeding on Magadi - Bengaluru road on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA -02- JH-7967, at that time, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37278-DB MFA No. 7247 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1174 of 2020 driver of lorry bearing Registration No. KA-04-3370 came in rash and negligent manner and suddenly stopped the lorry without giving any signal, thus the two wheeler of the deceased hit the lorry to the hind portion and owing to the impact, Praveen died on the spot. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. Hence, the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act. 5. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and noticed that the deceased was working as accountant at Accenture Solutions Pvt Ltd., and determined monthly income of the deceased at Rs.21,540/- and 50% towards future prospectus and deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, by applying multiplier at '16' and granted total compensation of Rs.31,02,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency' and saddled entire liability on the insurer of lorry. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, both the Insurance Company and claimants are before this Court. 6. Sri. A. N. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37278-DB MFA No. 7247 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1174 of 2020 Tribunal failed to hold inquiry as mandated under Section 168 of the MV Act while determining issue No.1. The Tribunal should have noticed the Rules of order and discretion formulated by the Central Government by virtue of powers granted under Section 118 of the MV Act. Further, the driver of the motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from the other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop. The Tribunal has not considered the aspect that the victim should have maintained safe distance from the vehicle which was proceeding ahead him. Therefore, the victim contributed negligence which is at 75%. Further, the Tribunal committed a serious error in taking 50% towards future prospects, which is contrary to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case as the deceased was working in a private company and there exists no guarantee or certainty regarding employment, wages etc., Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 7. Sri. Satheesh H.K., learned counsel for the appellants - claimants vehemently contended that the income - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37278-DB MFA No. 7247 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1174 of 2020 taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side and in fact the net salary of the deceased was Rs.25,540/- per month and he was working as an Accountant at Accenture Company and was earning Rs.45,000/- per month. Further, the compensation awarded under the conventional head is on the lower side. Hence, he prays to allow this appeal. 8. We have perused the award of the Tribunal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal paper including the records of the Tribunal, the following point would arise for our consideration: i. Whether the Tribunal has rightly justified in saddling the liability at 100% on the insurer of the offending vehicle? ii. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants is just and reasonable or does it call for any enhancement or reduction? 9. Insofar as contributory negligence is concerned, on perusal of oral evidence of P.W.1, Ex.P1 - FIR, Ex.P1(a) - Complaint, Ex.P2 - Mahazar, Ex.P3 - Spot Sketch and Ex.P7 - Charge Sheet, they clearly demonstrates that the offending lorry was moving on its extreme left side and the rider of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37278-DB MFA No. 7247 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1174 of 2020 motorcycle i.e, the deceased came from hind side and dashed to the lorry. As per the contention of the claimant, the driver of the lorry applied sudden brake and hence, the accident occurred. We have perused the contents of the spot mahazar and spot sketch, there is no reference as to any brake mark on the spot of accident. There is straight road at the place of accident. The rider of motorcycle could have maintained distance when following trucks, which have larger blind spots and longer stopping distances, thus, the rider of motorcycle could have increased his gap to protect his visibility and reaction time. Thus, could have followed two-second rule as a minimum safety by following distance for normal conditions. Thus, the rider of motorcycle would have applied brake, if the driver of lorry were suddenly stopped the vehicle. It shows that, the rider of motorcycle was also negligent on his process, thus he hit the hind portion of the lorry. Therefore, the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the deceased also contributed the negligence. 10. Further, Section 118 of M.V. Act, envisaged that, the Central Government to make regulations for the driving of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37278-DB MFA No. 7247 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1174 of 2020 motor vehicles by issuing notification in the official Gazette. These regulations govern various aspects of driving and road usage to ensure public safety, such as rules on how to drive, stop or park a vehicle without causing damage or inconvenience to others, In the instant case, the rider of motor cycle (the deceased) ought to have maintained distance, as he was following the offending lorry. If he had maintained distance, he could have avoided the accident. Thus, the deceased, the rider of motor cycle also contributed in accident. Hence, it is a fit case warranting exercise of the Court's power to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal and saddling liability of the offending vehicle lorry to an extent of 60% and 40% on the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the deceased. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal as regards to the contributory negligence is modified to such an extent. 10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is contended that, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.21,540/- as the monthly income of the deceased, instead of the gross salary. It is further contended that the deceased was working as accountant at - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37278-DB MFA No. 7247 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1174 of 2020 Accenture Solutions Ltd., and earning a sum of Rs.45,000/-. We have perused the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.P14 - Pay slips, Ex. P19 - settlement letter, Ex.P20 - attendance certificate, Ex.P21 - terms of employment and Ex.P22 - pay slips. These documents clearly demonstrated that the deceased was working as accountant at Accenture Solution Pvt. Ltd, and he was drawing salary of Rs.21,540/- per month. No material is placed on record, to substantiate that the deceased was drawing more than Rs.45,000/- per month. Hence, the income determined by the Tribunal is fair and reasonable one. Thus, no interference is called for in that regard. 11. The deceased was aged about 31 years and the appropriate multiplier applicable to his age group is '16'. The deceased died leaving behind his mother, father and physically handicapped brother and the deceased died bachelor. 12. The Tribunal has wrongly added 50% towards future prospects to the income of the deceased, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRANAY SETHI reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Hence, 40% of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37278-DB MFA No. 7247 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1174 of 2020 assessed income towards future prospects is added since the deceased was working in a private company and he was below the age of 40 years. Thus, the loss of dependency is worked as under: Rs.21,450 + Rs.8,580 (40%) = Rs.30,030/- Rs.30,030 - Rs.15,015 (50%) = Rs.15,015/- Rs.15,015 x 12 x 16 = Rs.28,82,880/- as against a sum of Rs.31,02,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The Tribunal committed an error in not awarding fair compensation under conventional heads. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRURAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017(16) SCC 680, the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’ each which comes to the total of Rs.1,20,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37278-DB MFA No. 7247 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1174 of 2020 14. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation: HEADS Rs. Loss of dependency 28,82,880 Loss of consortium 1,20,000 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 TOTAL 30,32,880 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 31,32,000 REDUCED COMPENSATION 99,120/- 15. In the result, we pass the following: O R D E R i. The appeals are allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.30,32,880/- as against Rs.31,32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, hence a sum Rs.99,120/- is reduced from the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The entire compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37278-DB MFA No. 7247 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1174 of 2020 iii. The appellant - Insurance Company is directed to pay 60% of its liability to the claimants including accrued interest thereupon and the liability of the deceased is determined at 40%. iv. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal. v. Draw modified award accordingly. vi. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal along with its record, forthwith. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21