- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8077 MFA No. 102450 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102450 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMANNA S/O SIDDAPPA BILKERI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SHEPHERD, 2. SMT. RENAWWA W/O RAMANNA BILKERI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, BOTH ARE R/O: KAMATAGI, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.S. YALIGAR AND SRI. M.B. HASALKAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI. B. VIJAYLAXMI W/O D.Y. RADDER, 05 CHETAN 1ST C MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT VIJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BHARATI AXXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., FIRST FLOOR, THE FEMS ICON, SURVEY NO.28 DODDANAKUNDI, BENGALURU-560 037, COVER NOTE NO.3240235 VALID UP TO 17.05.2018 TO 16.05.2014. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.126/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-X, HUNGUND. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8077 MFA No. 102450 of 2018 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 23.12.2014 passed in MVC No.126/2014 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-X, Hungund1 questioning the contributory negligence attributed on part of the deceased at 30% as well as seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8077 MFA No. 102450 of 2018 4. It is the case of claimants that on 14.08.2013 at about 10.30 am., the deceased went to his routine work as shepherd at Huchcheshwar Hill taking meals for himself and his father, at that time, while the deceased was crossing Hungund-Bagalkot road near Prime Petrol Pump left side of the road, at that time, one Innova car bearing Reg.No.KA-02/MH-5060 came from Hungund side with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 5. The claimants being father and mother of the deceased have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Upon the claim petition filed, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,51,400/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., but attributed 30% of negligence on part of the deceased on the reason that the deceased without observing ongoing vehicles was trying to cross the road. Therefore, formed opinion that the deceased had also contributed negligence. Accordingly, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8077 MFA No. 102450 of 2018 held that the deceased has attributed 30% of negligence to the accident. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the accident is not caused at middle of the road, but it is extremely left side of the road and the deceased was about to cross the road, at that time, the driver of Innova car came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Therefore, submitted that there is no contributory negligence on part of the deceased. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and also pray for enhancement of compensation. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company submitted that road is State Highway and the deceased ought to have taken care and precaution while crossing the road, but he did not do so, resulting into causing of accident. Therefore, the deceased had also contributed negligence to the accident - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8077 MFA No. 102450 of 2018 and that is correctly observed by the Tribunal. Hence, there is no need to make interference in this regard and also justified the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. Upon considering the facts and circumstances arisen from the records, the deceased was pedestrian, the road is State Highway. Ex.P-1 is the FIR; Ex.P-2 is the complaint in which, the entire allegation is made against the driver of the car; Ex.P-4 is the spot sketch which prove the fact that the place of accident is just 2 and ½ feet away from the edge of left side of the road from Hunagund-Bagalkot. Therefore, the deceased had just begun to cross the road by taking steps of 2 and ½ feet from the left side edge of the road. 9. Admittedly, the Innova car is coming from Hungund-Bagalkot road on its left side and ought to have taken care and precaution while driving the car. The accident spot shows that it is extremely at the left side of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8077 MFA No. 102450 of 2018 the road of Hungund-Bagalkot. It is not the case that the deceased was on the middle of the road or crossed some length of road. Therefore, considering the fact that as discussed above upon the documentary evidence placed by the claimants, it is proved that the driver of Innova car is found to be completely rash and negligent in driving the car and caused the accident. If the deceased had crossed the road furthermore and the accident was occurred, then it could have been said that the deceased had also contributed negligence, but considering the fact that the deceased had moved 2 and ½ feet from the left side edge of the road, which means the deceased was still at the left side edge of the road. Therefore, under such circumstances, the driver of the Innnova car alone is responsible to the accident. Hence, the Tribunal committed an error in attributing 30% of negligence on part of the deceased. 10. When all these evidence on record appreciated, it is found that the entire allegation is made against the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8077 MFA No. 102450 of 2018 driver of the car and charge sheet is filed against the driver of the car and the deceased was just on the left side edge of the road, which all cumulatively prove the fact that the driver of Innova car was completely rash and negligent in driving the car and caused the accident. Therefore, attribution of negligence at 30% on the part of the deceased is not correct. Hence, it is held that the driver of Innova car was completely rash and negligent in driving the car and caused the accident. Therefore, attribution of negligence at 30% on the part of the deceased is set aside. REGARDING QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: 11. In this case, the Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency. 4,32,000/- 2. Towards loss of love and affection. 50,000/- 3. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. 20,000/- Total: 5,02,000/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8077 MFA No. 102450 of 2018 12. The Tribunal awarded lesser amount of compensation contrary to the principles of law decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by modifying the judgment and award of the tribunal. 13. The deceased was aged 19 years as on the date of accident and was doing work as shepherd. The accident is caused on 14.08.2013. Hence, in the absence of proof of income, notional income is to be taken at Rs.7,000/- for the year 2013, as recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS2, considering the age of the deceased, 40% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life. The deceased was a bachelor. Therefore 50% of the income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate applicable multiplier 2 (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8077 MFA No. 102450 of 2018 is 18. Therefore, loss of dependency is re-assessed and quantified at Rs.10,58,400/- (Rs.7,000 + 40% minus 50% x 12 x 18). 14. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED V. NANU RAM & OTHERS3, and in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of consortium’, along with 10% escalation. There are two dependents who are father and mother. Accordingly, Rs.88,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2 + 10%) is awarded under the head of ‘loss of consortium including loss of love and affection’. 15. Further, a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each is awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral and transportation’ respectively, along with 10% escalation. Therefore, under these heads Rs.33,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 2 + 10%) is awarded. 3 2018 ACJ 2782 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8077 MFA No. 102450 of 2018 16. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency 10,58,400/- 2. Towards loss of consortium (40,000 x 2 +10%) 88,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate and transportation of dead body & funeral expenses. (15,000 x 2 + 10%) 33,000/- Total: 11,79,400/- 17. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded 9% p.a., but this Court while awarding compensation consistently awarding rate of interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Hence, the same is scaled down to 6% p.a. 18. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,79,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.5,02,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8077 MFA No. 102450 of 2018 compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 19. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and award dated 23.12.2014, passed in MVC No.126/2014 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Hungund and Member, MACT-X, Hungund, stands modified. iii. The claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,79,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, as against the compensation of Rs.5,02,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. iv. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8077 MFA No. 102450 of 2018 v. The order with regard to apportionment of compensation, deposit and release of amount would be as per order of Tribunal. vi. Send a copy of this judgment and award to the Tribunal. vii. No order as to costs. viii. Draw award accordingly. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs’, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA, PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 43