- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR M.F.A NO. 101371 OF 2019 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.H.GUNDAMMA W/O. LATE H.RANGANNA AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:HOME MAKER, 2. MINOR T. ANJALI D/O. LATE H. RANGANNA AGE:10 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT 3. MINOR T. HAMSA D/O. LATE H.RANGANNA AGE:09 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT 4. MINOR T. SWATHI D/O. LATE H. RANGANNA AGE:05 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT 5. MINOR T.RUTHIK S/O. LATE H. RANGANNA AGE:03 YEARS, SINCE THE APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 5 ARE MINORS, R/BY THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1 SMT.H.GUNDAMMA W/O.LATE H.RANGANNA, AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:HOME MAKER R/O.H.NO.99, WARD NO.2, K.EERAPURA VILLAGE TQ: AND DIST: BALLARI- 583101 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 AND: 1. SRI.RAJASHEKAR REDDY M S/O. MALLIKARJUNA M AGE:43 YEARS, DERIVER OF THE TRAILER AP- 21/AX-3630 R/O. VENKATESHWARA NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, PATEL NAGAR, BALLARI-583101 2. SMT.REDDYGONDLA RANGAMMA W/O. R. THIRUMALA REDDY AGE:41 YEARS, OWNER OF THE TRAILER AP-21/AX-3630 R/O. SAKIBANDA VILLAGE HALAHARVI DIST:KURNOOL-518001 3. THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DARE HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, NO.234, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600001 4. SRI.RAMESH C. S/O. CHIKKAMUNNIYAPPA AGE:43 YEARS, OWNER OF THE TVS MOPED KA-03/EQ-5579 R/O.NO.331, A.K.G. COLONY, CHANNASANDRA BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH R1, R2 AND R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.476/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The appellants being dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 06.12.2018 passed in MVC.No.476/2018 by the MACT II Ballari, have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal for convenience. 3. The claimants/petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act being the legal representatives of deceased Ranganna, who died in a road traffic accident at 7.00 p.m on 29.01.2018, when he was proceeding on his TVS Moped bearing Registration No.KA- 03/EQ-5579 on Karekel-K, Veerapura Road, near Solar plant. The respondent No.1, being the driver of the Tractor - Trailer bearing Registration No.AP-21/AX-3630 (hereinafter called as “offending vehicle”) had negligently stationed the said offending vehicle in the middle of the public road, endangering human life without taking safety measures, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 because of this Ranganna dashed his Moped to the back portion of the offending vehicle, he fell down and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sidiginamola and thereafter, shifted to VIMS Hosptial, Ballari but, he died at 1.45 am on 30.01.2018 because of accidental injuries. 4. According to claimants, deceased was aged 33 years at the time of accident and was a mason by profession. He was earning Rs.500/- per day. The claimants being the wife and children were depending upon his income. Because of untimely death of the deceased, the claimants are suffering mentally and financially. Therefore, it is prayed by the claimants to award the compensation as prayed in the claim petition with interest @ 24% p.a. 5. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their respective counsel. Despite service of notice, respondent No.4 did not appear and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed the objection statement, which was adopted by respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 has filed independent objection. These respondents specifically contend in their respective objections that, the whole allegations so made with regard to the accident, nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, his age, income, and dependency is false. 6. Respondent No.3 contends that deceased was not holding his Driving Licence, so also respondent No.1, the driver of the said offending vehicle. There is violation of the policy conditions, though it was valid on the date of accident. It is contended by the respondents that, the claim of the claimants is highly exorbitant and either respondent Nos.1 and 2 or respondent No.3 are liable to pay the compensation and has prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed three relevant issues. To prove the claim of the claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. Closed claimants’ evidence. An official of the respondent No.3 was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.D1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not lead any evidence. 8. The learned Tribunal, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence held that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and there was no contributory negligence on part of the deceased. It is also held that, the claimants are the dependents and they are entitled for compensation. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- under all the relevant heads, fastening liability on respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay the compensation jointly and severally but, however directed respondent No.3 to deposit the compensation amount under law of indemnity within 2 months before the Tribunal with an order of release of the amount and deposit. 9. The compensation so awarded by the Tribunal under various heads read as under: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Loss of dependency 15,12,000-00 2. Loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 40,000-00 3. Loss of Estate 15,000-00 4. Funeral expenses Transportation of Dead Body. 15,000-00 TOTAL 15,82,000-00 10. Being dissatisfied with the award, now the claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement. 11. Learned Sri. Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, the counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that, the deceased was a mason by profession and was earning Rs.500/- per day. The claimants were dependents. There was no rash and negligent driving of the Moped by the deceased. It was respondent, the driver of the Tractor- Trailer who had stationed the Tractor-Trailer without any indicator and without any safety measures in the middle of the road. He would submit that, as usual the deceased was riding his Moped in a slow manner. It was during night hours. Because of parking of the offending vehicle without indicator, he dashed to the said offending vehicle and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 sustained fatal injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same in the Hospital. Therefore, he submits that, the contention of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that deceased also contributed towards causing of the said accident is not proved by them. He would submit that, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the plea of the respondents to that effect. He would submits that, claimant No.1 is the wife of deceased and Claimant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of the deceased, who are just aged 9 years, 8 years, 4 years, 2 years respectively when the claim petition was filed. Claimant No.1 being the wife was aged 27 years at the time of accident and she is a housewife. He would submit that except the deceased, the claimants had no other earning member in the family. The income assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side. Loss of consortium is not properly awarded. Therefore, he prays to enhance the compensation by allowing this appeal. 12. As against this submission, the learned counsel for insurer Sri. Subhash J. Baddi submits that, the sketch so produced as per Ex.P3(a) do suggest that, though - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 the said offending vehicle was stationed at the middle of the road, but, the deceased had sufficient space towards the right side of the road to avoid the accident. Therefore, according to his submission, the deceased has contributed for causing the accident. He would submit that, respondent No.1 being driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid licence. Respondent No.2 entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not holding the licence, thereby there is violation of policy condition and hence respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation. Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served with the notice of this appeal but, they remained absent. 13. Having heard the arguments of both the sides and on perusal of the records, the questions that are to be decided in this appeal are: “1. Whether deceased also contributed in causing the accident? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed?” - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 14. Our answer to the above points are in favour of the claimants and against the respondents for the following reasons: Sofar as the accident that occurred at 7.00 p.m on 29.01.2018 is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the Tractor-Trailer owned by respondent No.2 was entrusted to respondent No.1, the driver of the Tractor Trailer bearing Registration No.AP-21/AX-3630 which was stationed on Karekal-K, Veerappa Road; near Solar plant on 29.01.2018 is not in dispute. The said offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 is also not in dispute. 15. PW.1, the claimant had come before the Tribunal and she is specific in her evidence that, because of stationing of the offending vehicle in the middle of the road without following any safety measures and indicator, deceased dashed his Moped to the hind side of the vehicle and sustained injuries. There is no negligence on the part of the deceased. She is specific in her examination-in-chief to that effect. Though PW.1 is cross-examined but, she has - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 withstood the test of cross-examination. Respondent No.1 being the driver was not chosen to enter the witness box. He would have been the best witness to speak as to why he stationed the said offending vehicle in the middle of the road without following any safety measures and indicators. Even the Panchanama so produced and sketch so marked before the Tribunal do establish about stationing of the vehicle without any safety measures and indicators. Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act specifically speaks with regard to parking of the vehicle in a dangerous position endangering human life amounts to rash and negligence. The said provision reads as under: “Section 122- Leaving vehicle in dangerous position – No person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any public place in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers.” - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 16. There is no evidence placed on record by respondent Nos.1 to 3 that, deceased also contributed in causing the accident. The learned Tribunal has rejected the plea of the respondents to that effect. Being aggrieved by the said findings, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not preferred any appeal, thereby, the said finding of the Tribunal has attained finality. We do not find any factual error committed by the Tribunal with regard to the said finding. Therefore, the submission of counsel for respondent No.3, with regard to the contributory negligence cannot be accepted. Thus, the claimants are able to prove that, because of negligent act of respondent No.1 of stationing of the said offending vehicle in the middle of the road without any safety measures and indicators amounts to rashness and negligence exclusively by him and not by the deceased. 17. Sofar as award of the compensation is concerned, while calculating the income of the deceased, in the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has taken his notional income at Rs.7,500/- p.m. leaving aside the claim of the claimants that, he was earning Rs.500/- per day. It is - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 not in dispute that deceased was aged 33 years as per PM report at the time of accident. It is the only document to prove the age. By taking the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/-, by following the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi1 and Sarla Verma and Others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another2 learned Tribunal has calculated the Loss of dependency at Rs.15,12,000/-. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal has committed error in taking notional income at Rs.7,500/- pm. The accident is of the year 2018. As per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, in the absence of proof of income of the deceased, the notional income that is to be assessed is at Rs.11,750/- pm. To this 40% is to be added, as rightly added by the Tribunal towards future prospects. The deceased had 5 dependents, therefore 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses. As the deceased was aged 33 years at the time of accident as per the judgment in Sarla Verma supra, the proper multiplier that is applicable 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 2 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 is “16”. Thus, loss of dependency can be calculated as under: Rs.11,750 + 40% future prospects is Rs.4,700/-. It comes to Rs.16,450/-. Out of this 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.4,112/-. If it is deducted from Rs.16,450, the net income of the deceased would be Rs.12,338/- p.m. It is to be multiplied with 12 to calculate annually. As the deceased was aged 33 years, the proper multiplier that is applicable is 16. Thus, loss of dependency would be Rs.12,338 x 12 months x 16, which comes to Rs.23,68,896/-. Thus, towards loss of dependency, there shall be increase of compensation. 18. The learned Tribunal has awarded consortium to claimant No.1 only at Rs.40,000/-. Claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 to 5 are the small children who are minors even till date. Therefore, at their young age they lost their loving father and claimant No.1 – wife was aged 27 years at the time of accident and lost her husband at her young age and also lost her conjugal happiness. Therefore, all the claimants are held entitled for consortium of Rs.40,000/- each with 10% hike for the next 3 years of - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 accident leaving initial 3 years of accident as the accident took place in the year 2018. That means each claimants are held entitled for Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Therefore, claimants are entitled for Rs.2,20,000/- under the head of `loss of consortium’. 19. Towards other conventional heads i.e., loss of estate and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- each but, has failed to add 10% of the amount towards escalation. Assessment of compensation in this regard thus interfered and enhanced by Rs.1,500/-each. Thus the claimants are held entitle for compensation as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Loss of dependency 23,68,896-00 2. Loss of consortium (claimant/ appellant nos. 1 to 5) 2,20,000-00 3. Loss of Estate (with 10% escalation) 16,500-00 4. Funeral expenses Transportation of Dead Body (with 10% escalation). 16,500-00 TOTAL 26,21,896-00 - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 20. It is held that the claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.26,21,896/- as against Rs.15,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thereby there is enhancement of compensation of Rs.10,39,896/-. 21. It is held that, as the said accident has taken place exclusively because of rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 being driver of offending vehicle owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. For the tortious act of respondent No.1 his master is held liable. Thus, respondent No.2 and 3 are liable to pay the compensation. As there is no proof of violation of policy conditions as held by the Tribunal, the respondent No.3 to deposit the compensation amount under law of indemnity. Accordingly, the point raised supra is answered. Though the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7% p.a on the compensation so awarded, it is on higher side. Therefore, claimants are entitled for interest on the compensation amount at the rate 6% p.a from the date of petition till its realization. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 22. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in-part. They are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.26,21,896/- as against Rs.15,82,000/- thereby, there would be enhancement of Rs.10,39,896/- as compensation. ii. The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.476/2018 dated 06.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents claim Tribunal – II, Ballari, is hereby modified to the above extent. iii. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally are held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent no.3 to deposit the said enhanced compensation together with interest @6%p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment before the Tribunal. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2976-DB MFA No. 101371 of 2019 iv. So far as award of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment, deposit and disbursement of the compensation amount so ordered by the Tribunal, shall remain unaltered. v. There shall be a modified award accordingly. vi. Registry to transmit the trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal along with the copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM/Ct:VG LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 18