- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27625 MFA No. 1844 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1844 OF 2014 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. RANGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O BORE GOWDA 2. SMT.SAROJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O. RANGE GOWDA 3. K.R.LOKESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O RANGE GOWDA ALL ARE RESIDING AT 11TH MAIN, LAKSHMIDEVINAGAR, OPPOSITE TO SONAL GARMENT, LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560096 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27625 MFA No. 1844 of 2014 AND: 1. VENKATESH MAJOR, S/O DEVALA NAYAK, SHANTHINAGAR, TEJUR ROAD, HASSAN-573201 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE, OPP.BSNL BHAVAN, B.H.ROAD, HASSAN-573201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANAPATHI ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.E. I. SANMATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.8.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7133/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 17TH ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27625 MFA No. 1844 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 17.08.2013 by the MACT (SCCH-11), Bengaluru in MVC No.7133/2010. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 30.07.2010, at about 11.30 p.m., the deceased K.R.Ravi Kumar, who was a cleaner in the lorry was sitting next to the driver in a tanker bearing registration No.KA-13-A- 284. The driver of the tanker lorry was driving it in a rash and negligent manner, near Kudur Hobli. Due to the same it hit another lorry that was parked on the road. As a result of impact, the said Ravi Kumar sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. 4. It is the further case of the claimants that deceased was aged about 26 years and was working as a cleaner in the said vehicle and earning a sum of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27625 MFA No. 1844 of 2014 Rs.7,500/- per month. The claimants were dependent upon his earnings. For these reasons, they were seeking for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are parents and claimant No.3 is younger brother of the deceased. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending lorry bearing No.KA- 13-A-284. Both the respondents appeared and respondent No.2 filed its written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. It further denied its liability to pay the compensation and further contended that accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the lorry parked on the side of the road without indicating lights. Therefore, respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation. He has further stated that the driver of the parked vehicle had been charge sheeted. The said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and in the event of payment of compensation, respondent No.2 shall be directed to pay the same. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27625 MFA No. 1844 of 2014 6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues on the basis of rival contentions of the parties. 7. The claimants to prove their case examined claimant No.2 as PW.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to 10. Respondent No.1 examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.R1 to 5. 8. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and assessing the materials available on record held that accident occurred not due to the negligence of driver of the offending vehicle, but because of the other vehicle parked on the side of the road, negligently without signal lights. The Tribunal dismissed the claim against respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that they were not responsible to pay the compensation. 9. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and respondents. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27625 MFA No. 1844 of 2014 claim petition ignoring the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Another vehicle was parked on the side of the road and driver of the offending vehicle hit against the said lorry and caused the collision. Deceased was a cleaner and a third party. He was not at all responsible for the accident. Even if it is considered as a case of composite negligence involving the drivers of both vehicles, then claimants can seek compensation from either of the joint tortfeasors. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and award a just and reasonable amount of compensation. 11. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 (insurer) vehemently contended that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the materials available on record and has awarded the compensation. It does not call for any interference. He further contended that the claimants had filed an application before the Tribunal to implead the owner and insurer of the parked vehicle; however, the Tribunal rejected the said application. The said application - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27625 MFA No. 1844 of 2014 may be revived and the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for further hearing of the matter and to decide the same. For these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. I have anxiously perused the records. FIR was lodged by a head Police Constable, who was not an eye witness to the incident. Looking at the scenario of the collision between two vehicle, he lodged a complaint on 31.07.2010. On that basis, FIR No.162/2010 was registered by Magadi police. Investigation was done. The spot mahazar and map of the spot of incident are at Exs.P.4 and 8. All these documents show that the parked lorry was on the left side of the road. It appears that it was a two way road and one lane was under repair. Therefore, both the vehicles were moving on the other side of the highway. The said road was said to be about 40 feet width at the spot of accident. It was the duty of the respondent No.1 to examine his driver to show that there was no opportunity for him to pass through from the right - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27625 MFA No. 1844 of 2014 side of the parked lorry. No such evidence was led by respondents. It is also pertinent to note that after completion of investigation of the matter, the concerned Investigating Officer charge sheeted the driver of the offending vehicle for the accident in question. The said driver or owner of the vehicle challenged the charge sheet. Therefore, contention of the insurer that driver of the offending vehicle was not responsible for the accident is not acceptable. 13. This is not a criminal proceeding wherein the actionable negligence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient to prove the involvement of the vehicle and prima facie prove that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of offending lorry. That is proved by the charge sheet laid against the driver of the said lorry. Therefore, finding of the Tribunal on this point is erroneous. Owner or insurer of the parked lorry are not party in the proceedings. In the absence of the said persons, giving any finding against them is not permissible - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27625 MFA No. 1844 of 2014 since the driver of the said lorry was not charge sheeted. Hence, view of the Tribunal that the driver of the parked lorry was responsible for the accident is not tenable. As held in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 by the Hon'ble Apex Court the third party to the accident can maintain claim petitions against either of joint tortfeasors. Hence, claim petition is maintainable. 14. The next question is regarding the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has not assessed the compensation. The accident was of the year 2010, already 15 years has elapsed, if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to assess the amount of compensation its disposal takes its own time. Moreover the materials are already on record. Under Order XLI Rule 33 of the CPC, this Court can assess the amount of compensation. 15. The transfer certificate of the deceased is placed on record at Ex.P.9, which shows that the date of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27625 MFA No. 1844 of 2014 birth was 07.01.1982. As on the date of the accident i.e., on 30.07.2010, he has completed 28 years. According to the claim petition, he was earning Rs.7,500/- per month. There is no material to prove the said income. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed. Following the chart prepared by the KSLSA, notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.5,500/- per month. As held in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income has to be added to the said income towards future prospects. The multiplier applicable between the age group of 26 to 30 is '17'. Deceased was unmarried therefore 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. On these figures the amount of compensation under the head 'loss of Dependency' is assessed. 16. As held in the case of Pranay Sethi referred supra, the compensation under the 'conventional head' is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27625 MFA No. 1844 of 2014 determined. Accordingly, claimants are entitled for the following amount of compensation: Sl.No. Heads Amount (RS.) 1. Loss of dependency (Rs.5,500/- + 40% X 12 X 17 - 50%) 7,85,400/- 2. Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000X3) 1,20,000/- 3. Loss of estate 15,000/- 4. Funeral expenses 15,000/- Total 9,35,400/- 17. The claimants are entitled to interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. 18. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 19. Claimants Nos.1 and 2 are parents; each of them are entitled for 45% of the amount and claimant No.3 is the brother and he is entitled to 10% of the compensation. Accordingly, the following orders are passed: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27625 MFA No. 1844 of 2014 ORDER i) Appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 17.08.2013, passed by MACT, Bangaluru in MVC No.7133/2010 is set aside. iii) Claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.9,35,400/- with interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. Respondent No.2 being the insurer, shall deposit the said amount within a period of 6 weeks from the date of award. v) Out of the compensation awarded, claimant Nos.1 and 2 each are entitled to 45% and claimant No.3 is entitled to 10% of the compensation. Out of the said amount, claimant Nos.1 and 2 each shall deposit 50% of the amount in a fixed deposit for a period of 2 years in any of the Nationalized Bank. The amount apportioned in favour of claimant No.3 is marginal, thereby entire amount allotted to him is ordered to be released on due identification. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27625 MFA No. 1844 of 2014 vi) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9