- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 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.4791 OF 2021 (MV-D) CONNECTED WITH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6094 OF 2021 (MV-D) IN M.F.A. No.4791/2021: BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MALGIRI PLAZA OPPOSITE JJM DENTAL COLLEGE MCC B BLOCK DAVANAGERE NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI A.M. VENKATESH) AND: 1. BASAVARAJAPPA S. S/O. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 2. SMT. SOWBHAGYA W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURIST. 3. ABHISHEK S.B. S/O. BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS STUDENT. RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT ADANUR VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526. 4. RATHNAMMA W/O C.S. RAJAPPA RESIDENT OF CHIKKANDAWADI VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526. 5. G.V. JAGADEESHA S/O. VIRUPANNA RESIDENT OF CHIKKANDAWADI VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVAKUMARAPPA T.C., ADVOCATE, FOR R-2 AND R-3, & SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-4 AND R-5) * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 5-12-2020 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.512 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & M.A.C.T., HOLALKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.18,03,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 IN M.F.A. NO.6094/2021: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SOWBHAGAYA W/O. LATE BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS HOUSEHOLD AGRICULTURE WORK. 2. ABHISHEK S.B. S/O. LATE BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF ADANUR VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHIVAKUMARAPPA T.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RATHNAMMA W/O. C.S. RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDENT OF CHIKKANDAVADI VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. MALGIRI PLAZA OPPOSITE J.J.M. DENTAL COLLEGE MCC B BLOCK DAVANAGERE-577 002. 3. G.V. JAGADEESHA S/O. VIRUPANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDENT OF CHIKKANDAVADI VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1 AND R-3, & SRI B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI A.M. VENKATESH, FOR R-2) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 5-12-2020 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.512 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & M.A.C.T., HOLALKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T.) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4791 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability, negligence and quantum of compensation awarded as excessive and seeking reduction of the same in M.V.C. No.512 of 2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Holalkere, dated 5-12-2020, whereas Miscellaneous First Appeal No.6094 of 2021 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 28-10-2018 at 8:50 p.m., Sri Avinash (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was riding his motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA-16 EE- 5626, from Hireguntanuru Village to Adanur Village, Holalkere Taluk. When he reached near Chikkajajuru Village, a tractor, bearing Registration No.KA-16 TB-3783, and a trailer, bearing Registration No.KA-16 T-5579, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the break and stopped the tractor without giving any signals. The rider of the motorcycle lost control and hit the back right side of the trailer of the tractor. Due to the said impact, the rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries while shifting to the Hospital. Hence, the dependants of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal claiming compensation. 4. Heard Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.M. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, as well as Sri Shivakumarappa T.C., - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 learned counsel for the claimants, and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal without perusing the evidence on record saddled the entire liability on the driver of the tractor-trailer. In fact, the rider of the motorcycle came from behind and dashed against the back of the trailer and the deceased was not wearing helmet. Further, the Tribunal has awarded higher compensation under other heads. Hence, he prayed for allowing Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4791 of 2021. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal while granting compensation has not considered the future prospects as the deceased, who was aged 23 years. Further, the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation under other heads. Hence, he prayed for allowing Miscellaneous First Appeal No.6094 of 2021. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the following points would arise for our consideration in these appeals: i. Whether the Insurance Company has proved that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation in view of non-possessing insurance policy to the trailer as on the date of the accident? ii. Whether the Insurance Company has proved that the rider of the motorcycle/deceased also contributed to the negligence? iii. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or it requires any interference? 8. Point No.i: Insofar as the liability is concerned, it is the contention of the Insurance Company that as on the date of accident, the trailer did not possess any Insurance Policy and the accident occurred due to the involvement of the trailer. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 9. In the present cases, the admitted facts are that the accident occurred while the driver of the tractor-trailer suddenly applied the break without any signals, the rider of the motorcycle came from behind and dashed against the back of the trailer and died due to accident injuries. The trailer was attached to the tractor. 10. From above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand- alone, the accident happened. Therefore, the accident was caused by the tractor, as it occurred during the course of being driven by the tractor, consequently, the liability of the tractor and its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor which resulted in the death of the deceased, through the involvement of trailer. This being the position, in the present cases, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the Insurance Company to make it liable, would not be applicable. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 11. The Supreme Court in the case of The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Honnamma and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1027 has clearly held that the insurer of an insured tractor is liable for an accident caused by the composite tractor-trailer unit, even if the trailer is uninsured. The Court applied the "root cause test," establishing that the tractor's movement was the proximate cause of the accident, and therefore, its insurance policy extended to the entire composite vehicle's liability, subject to policy limits and statutory maximums. 12. In view of the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, we hold that the insurer of the tractor is held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, though it was caused through the trailer. 13. Point No.ii: Insofar as the negligence is concerned, at the time of accident, the rider of the motorcycle/deceased was not wearing helmet. As per the record, the rider of the motorcycle also came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the back of the trailer. Therefore, we assess the negligence to an extent of 40% on the rider of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 motorcycle/deceased and 60% on the driver of the tractor- trailer. 14. Point No.iii: Insofar as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it may be noted that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 23 years and prior to accident, he was working as a Lineman at BESCOM. As per the salary slip, the income of the deceased was Rs.12,000/- per month. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. 15. The Tribunal has not considered 'future prospects'. As per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income must be added towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.4,800/- (12,000 X 40%) and the total income comes to Rs.16,800/- per month (12,000 + 4,800). The claimants, i.e. mother, father and brother of the deceased, are the dependents of the deceased and the deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, 50% of the income shall be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. It would work out to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 Rs.8,400/- per month (16,800 X 50%). The deceased was aged 23 years as on the date of the accident. Hence, the applicable multiplier would be ‘18’ and it works out to Rs.18,14,400/- (8,400 X 12 X 18). This would be the ‘loss of dependency’ as against Rs.17,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi's case, stated supra, has discussed about granting the compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ and has also issued guidelines for grant of ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’ and ‘filial consortium’. The claimants are mother, father and brother of the deceased. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) towards ‘loss of consortium’ and 'loss of love and affection' as against Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/-, respectively, awarded by the Tribunal. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 17. Rs.25,000/- awarded towards 'funeral expenses' is reduced to Rs.15,000/- and we award Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate'. 18. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation: HEADS Rs. Loss of dependency 18,14,400.00 Loss of consortium 1,20,000.00 Funeral expenses 15,000.00 Loss of estate 15,000.00 TOTAL 19,64,400.00 Less: Negligence contributed by the deceased at 40% 7,85,760.00 TOTAL COMPENSATION 11,78,640.00 19. In the result, we pass the following O R D E R i. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4791 of 2021 and Miscellaneous First Appeal No.6094 of 2021 are allowed- in-part. ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled for 60% of the compensation, i.e. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 Rs.11,78,640/-, as the deceased contributed negligence at 40%. iii. The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,78,640/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation. iv. The National Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the entire compensation together with interest within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 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. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36952-DB MFA No. 4791 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6094 of 2021 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal along with its record, forthwith. In view of the disposal of the main appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5