- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7364 MFA No. 103370 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103370 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. SAVITRI @ SAVAKKA W/O. HANAMANTH GOMBARAGI, AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. MALLIKARJUN S/O. HANAMANTH GOMBARAGI, AGE: 09 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 3. MANJUNATH S/O. HANAMANTH GOMBARAGI, AGE: 07 YEARS, OCC: NIL, ALL ARE R/O: HUNASHYAL, NOW RESIDING AT JAMAKHANDI-587 301, DIST: BAGALKOT. SINCE APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. AFZARHUSSAIN S/O. RAZAKHUSAIN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, NO.19 2 227/1/A, BHADURPUR, HYDARABAD, RANGAREDDY, ANDHRA PRADESH-500 264. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7364 MFA No. 103370 of 2015 2-2-217, H.B. COMPLEX, KODANGAL ROAD, TANDUR-501 141, R.R. DISTRICT (ANDHRA PRADESH). … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 – SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.203/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XI, JAMAKHANDI, AND ETC.,. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 30.09.2015, passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot to sit at Jamakhandi and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XI, Jamakhandi, in MVC No. 203/2010, seeking for enhancement of compensation and questioning attributing 50% negligence on the deceased. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the material placed before the Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7364 MFA No. 103370 of 2015 3. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. It is the case of the claimant that on 10.10.2008 at about 08.00 p.m. the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KA-49/E-9414 towards Jamakhandi on Mudhol-Jamakhandi road and after passing Siddapur village, a truck bearing No.AP-29/T-6604 was negligently parked without any signal or caution on the middle of the road obstructing movement of other vehicles. Therefore, the deceased could not see the truck and dashed the hind side of the truck and sustained severe injuries and thereafter he was shifted to the hospital, but later on he succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the wife and children have filed claim petition. The tribunal while awarding compensation has held that the deceased has contributed 50% of rashness and negligence. Therefore, out of the totally determined compensation, 50% of the compensation is awarded. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7364 MFA No. 103370 of 2015 5. Being aggrieved by it, the claimants preferred appeal by raising various grounds. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the truck was stationed on the middle of the road obstructing the movement of other vehicles and the accident occurred in the night at 08.00 p.m. and since there is no signal and parking lights were not put on, it is amounting to gross negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. Thus, accident is caused, for which the driver of the truck was solely responsible. But the tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased has also contributed 50% of rashness and negligence. Further, prays for enhancement of compensation on the ground that income is not added towards loss of future prospects in life. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent insurance company submitted that the deceased has consumed alcohol, which is reflected in Ex.R.3 wound certificate. Therefore, the deceased was under the influence of alcohol, hence, he could not control the motorcycle and hit the stationed lorry. Thus, the deceased has also equally - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7364 MFA No. 103370 of 2015 contributed rashness and negligence which is rightly assessed and determined by the tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to make interference with the judgment and award passed by the tribunal. 7. Upon perusing the documents, such as FIR, complaint, charge sheet, allegation is made against both the drivers i.e., driver of truck and the deceased that both have contributed their rashness and negligence to the accident. The police have filed abated charge sheet since the rider of the motorcycle died during the course of the investigation. When these being the police records indicating that the deceased had also contributed equally to the cause of accident, the tribunal is justified in holding the deceased was also negligent. Thus, there is no need to make interference in this regard. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Undisputedly the accident is caused on 10.10.2008 at 08.00 p.m. on Mudhol-Jamakhandi road. The truck was parked facing towards Jamakhandi. The deceased was riding the motorcycle from Mudhol towards Jamakhandi. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7364 MFA No. 103370 of 2015 Ex.P.5 is the sketch showing that the lorry was stationed on slightly middle of the road towards left side unattended by any other precautionary measures. There is no evidence from the owner or driver of the truck that the truck was stationed by putting signal and cautions to other vehicles. The accident occurred in the night at 08.00 p.m. Therefore, as per Regulation 3 of the Motor Vehicle (Driving) Regulations, 2017, the driver should not stop the vehicle on the road in a public place in such a manner as is likely to endanger the safety of, or cause inconvenience to, other road users. Even if it is inevitable to stop the vehicle on the road, then the driver shall put on the parking lights or make arrangement for putting signals making attention to the drivers of other vehicles who would pass on the road. But in this case considering the evidence on record, there was no such attempt was made by the driver of the truck. Therefore, the driver of the truck was also negligent in stationing the truck on the road. Upon perusing the spot sketch, the lorry was also parked in such a way that had caused obstruction - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7364 MFA No. 103370 of 2015 for movement of other vehicles. Therefore, the driver of the truck is more responsible to the accident. 9. But if the documentary evidence on record Ex.R.3 is considered, it shows that while the deceased was being admitted to the hospital, he had consumed alcohol and therefore, the physical status and history of accident recorded by the hospital revealed that the deceased had consumed alcohol and was unconscious. Therefore, this consumption of alcohol by the deceased while riding the motorcycle is also a contributory factor towards the accident. The tribunal has held both the drivers i.e., the driver of the truck and the deceased were responsible at 50:50 ratio. But upon considering the factors and the eventualities are appreciated with the help of documentary evidence on record, the lorry was parked on the road without giving any signal to the passing though vehicles and at the same time deceased had consumed alcohol and was riding the motorcycle. Therefore, in this regard the deceased could not be said that he was 50% negligent to the accident. But the deceased has also contributed in rashness and negligence - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7364 MFA No. 103370 of 2015 towards the accident. Therefore, considering all these factors, it could be said that the deceased had contributed 25% of negligence. Therefore, it is held that the driver of the truck was 75% negligent while parking the truck on the road without signals and the deceased has contributed 25% of rashness and negligence in causing the accident. Accordingly the finding of the tribunal on apportionment of rashness and negligence is modified to the above extent. 10. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, Ex.P.11 is the salary certificate issued by the sugar factory wherein the deceased was working as Supervisor by receiving a salary of Rs.8,233/- per month. It is submitted that apart from being Supervisor, the deceased was also owner of agricultural lands and produced record of rights at Ex.P.10 which are standing in the name of members of the family of the deceased. Ex.P.18 is the bill for having supplied sugarcane. Therefore, the deceased was having income being Supervisor in the factory and also being a sharer in the agricultural income as RTC extracts stand in the name of members of the family of deceased. Therefore, the tribunal - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7364 MFA No. 103370 of 2015 has committed error in considering the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- only. Therefore, considering all these aspects, though there is no evidence to show what would be the agricultural income, but also the salary certificate proves the fact that the deceased was receiving salary of Rs.8,233/- and some income from agriculture; therefore, it could be inferred that the deceased at least was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 11. Further, the tribunal has committed error in not adding income towards loss of future prospects. The deceased was working in permanent nature of job. The deceased was aged 30 years old at the time of accident. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, considering the age of the deceased, 50% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life. Considering the number of dependents on the deceased, 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Considering the age of the deceased, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7364 MFA No. 103370 of 2015 appropriate applicable multiplier is 17. Therefore loss of dependency is re-assessed and quantified at Rs.20,40,000/- (Rs.10,000 + 50% minus 1/3rd x 12 x 17). 12. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram & Others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 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 three dependents who are wife and two children of the deceased. Accordingly, Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3 + 10%) is awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium including loss of love and affection’. 13. 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. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7364 MFA No. 103370 of 2015 14. Further, the tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.45,000/- only towards medical expenses. But Ex.P.12 medical bills prove the fact that the claimants have produced medical bills of Rs.1,68,325/- towards medical expenses and hospitalization charges. Accordingly a sum of Rs.1,68,325/- is awarded towards medical expenses. 15. 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 20,40,000 2. Towards loss of consortium (40,000 x 3 +10%) 1,32,000 3. Towards loss of estate and transportation of dead body & funeral expenses. (15,000 x 2 + 10%) 33,000 4. Medical expenses. 1,68,325 Total: 23,73,325 Less: 25% towards contributory negligence. 5,93,331 Total compensation payable: 17,79,994 16. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.17,79,994/-, which is 75% of the total - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7364 MFA No. 103370 of 2015 compensation, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.4,53,000/- awarded by the tribunal. The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 17. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 30.09.2015, passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, to sit at Jamakhandi and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XI, Jamakhandi, in MVC No.203/2010 is modified. iii) The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.17,79,994/-, which is 75% of the total compensation, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7364 MFA No. 103370 of 2015 petition till realization, as against Rs.4,53,000/- awarded by the tribunal. iv) The respondent insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. v) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment and award to the tribunal. vi) No order as to costs. vii) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39