- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL M.F.A. NO.103784 OF 2023 (MV-D) C/W. M.F.A. NO.102632 OF 2023 (MV-D) IN MFA NO.103784/2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RADHA W/O. RAJASHEKHAR GAONKAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. DABBESAL-581359, POST. BALAGAR, TALUKA: YALLAPUR, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA. 2. RAJASHEKHAR S/O. NARASIMHA GAONKAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, R/O. DABBESAL-581359, POST. BALAGAR, TALUKA: YALLAPUR, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA. 3. YOGESH RAJASHEKHAR GAONKAR, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O. DABBESAL-581359, POST. BALAGAR, TALUKA: YALLAPUR, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA. SINCE ABNORMAL REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI ANAND TIPPANNA SONAPPANAVAR, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 AGE: 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O. HALLIGERI-580118, TALUKA AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. V. YAJI, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2023 IN MVC NO.2302/2021 PASSED BY THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, BELAGAVI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.19,34,400/- TO RS. 2,00,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO.102632/2023 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-580020, REP. BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. V. YAJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RADHA RAJASHEKHAR GAONKAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DABBESAL, POST. BALAGAR, TQ. YALLAPUR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581337. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 2. RAJASHEKHAR NARISIMBA GAONKAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. DABBESAL, POST. BALAGAR, TQ. YALLAPUR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581337. 3. YOGESH RAJASHEKHAR GAONKAR, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. DABBESAL, POST. BALAGAR, TQ. YALLAPUR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581337. SINCE ABNORMAL REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER. 4. ANAND TIPPANNA SONAPPANAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HALLIGERI, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD-580118. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2023 PASSED BY THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.2302/2021 SADDLING THE LIABILITY TO AN EXTENT OF 80% ON THIS APPELLANT. BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IT IS PRAYED THAT THE LIABILITY OF THIS APPELLANT BE DETERMINED AT 40% HOLDING THAT THE RIDER OF THE INSURED MOTOR BIKE WAS NEGLIGENT AND CONTRIBUTED TO AN EXTENT OF 40% AS AGAINST 80% DETERMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND MODIFY THE AWARD AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND ETC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) MFA No.103784/2023 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and shifting of entire liability on the Insurance Company, whereas MFA No.102632/2023 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging saddling of 80% liability on it. Both the appeals are arising out of the judgment and award dated 30.03.2023 passed in MVC No.2302/2021 on the file of XI Addl. District Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi1. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that on 11.07.2021 at about 8:30 p.m., the deceased-Prasad Gaonkar was proceeding from Dharwad to Haliyal riding a motorcycle bearing No.KA-31/Y-5533 along with pillion rider- Raghavendra Hedge. When he reached near the spot of the accident i.e. Sai Dhaba, rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/HB-6930 came from Halligeri towards Dharwad in a high speed. It was ridden in rash and negligent manner, due to which he lost control on the motorcycle and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of which, 1 For short, ‘Tribunal’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Dharwad and after first aid, he was shifted to SDM, Dharwad wherein he was admitted as an inpatient. On 16.07.2021, he succumbed to the injuries while under treatment. It is averred that the deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident, he was studying in 2nd year M.Sc. and also working as a Nodal Lab Assistant at KIMS Hubballi and earning a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. The claimants, who are the parents and sibling of the deceased have filed claim petition seeking compensation. 3. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is averred that the accident is caused due to the negligence of the deceased. They have denied age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is further contended that the deceased and the pillion rider were not wearing helmet at the time of accident. As a result, violating Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also contended that the petitioners have not impleaded the owner and insurer of another motorcycle. Therefore, the petition was bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. It was contended that the offending - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 vehicle did not have valid RC and FC and the rider of the motorcycle was not in possession of an effective DL at the time of accident. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The claimant No.1 examined PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P38. The respondents did not adduce oral evidence and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. The Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.19,34,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization by recording a finding that deceased contributed to the accident to the extent of 20% by directing the Insurance Company to pay 80% of the total compensation. Being aggrieved, the claimants as well as the Insurance Company are before this Court challenging the quantum of compensation. 5. Smt.Sunanda P.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased has contributed to the accident and saddled liability at 20%. It is submitted that the deceased was highly qualified earning Rs.31,000/- per month as is evident from Exs.P15 to P18. It is submitted that the deceased was 2nd - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 year M.Sc. student and was working during the Covid period and was earning, which demonstrate that he had a capacity to earn more than Rs.31,000/- per month. It is submitted that the rider of the offending motorcycle has given statement before the police which is marked as Ex.P8, in which he admits that he was negligent and caused the accident. Hence, the entire liability is required to be shifted on the rider of the offending motorcycle and the Insurance Company is liable to pay total enhanced compensation. Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants. 6. Per contra, Sri. S.V.Yaji, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has erred in recoding a finding that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent to the extent of 80% and the said finding is contrary to the Ex.R1-sketch on record. It is submitted that the deceased rider was having 10 feet on his left side however, he came on his right and caused the accident. Hence, the entire liability should be on the deceased. It is further submitted that charge sheet is filed on the deceased as well as rider of the motorcycle which is insured with the appellant and taking note of the same, at least - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 50:50 shall be on the rider of the offending motorcycle and the deceased. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation, learned counsel for the cross objectors-claimants and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 8. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference?” 9. Answer to the above point would be in the “partly affirmative” for the following reasons: (a) The material on record indicate that one Prasad Rajashekhar Gaonkar was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31/Y-5533 from Dharwad to Haliyal on 11.07.2021 along with pillion rider. At that time, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/HB-6930 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased resulted in he sustaining grievous injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence recorded the finding that the deceased was partly negligent and contributed to the accident and accordingly apportioned liability of 20% on him. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the collision is head-on collision and Ex.R1 indicates that the deceased crossed the middle of the road, came extremely to his right and dashed the opposite motorcycle. Hence, the entire liability is required to be saddled on him. We have perused the Ex.R1-the sketch produced along with the charge sheet. The sketch indicates that the spot of accident is approximately middle of the road. That itself cannot be a basis to come to conclusion that the deceased was negligent and caused the accident in the absence of oral testimony to the effect that the deceased crossed middle line of the road and dashed to the opposite motorcycle. Admittedly, the charge sheet is filed by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 jurisdictional police against the deceased as well as the rider of the offending motorcycle. It is to be noticed that the Insurance Company has not raised the aspect of contributory negligence in their written statement filed before the Tribunal nor adduced any evidence to that effect. Hence, the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company with regard to the contributory negligence of the deceased in entirety cannot be accepted. Similarly the contention of the claimants to saddle entire liability on the Insurance Company also cannot be accepted as the Tribunal taking note of the charge sheet material and Ex.P8- the statement of the rider of the offending motorcycle has apportioned contributory negligence at the ratio of 20% and 80% on the deceased as well as on the rider of the offending motorcycle. The said finding and apportionment of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record calling for interference. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 (b) Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. The claimants in order to prove the income of the deceased placed reliance on Exs.P15 to P18. We have perused the said exhibits, pleadings and other evidence on record, it can be noticed that the deceased was 2nd year M.Sc. student at the time of accident. The aforesaid exhibits though indicate about payment of Rs.31,000/- to the deceased for some period, those documents cannot be the sole basis to assess the income of the deceased. Admittedly the deceased was not working and he was pursuing his higher education. Considering the merits and the educational qualification of the deceased, we are of the considered view that the assessment of income by the Tribunal is on lower side. The accident is of the year 2021 and as per the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA for the unskilled labour, this Court and the Tribunal assessed the income at Rs.14,250/- per month. Taking note of the educational qualification and potentional earning - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 capacity of the deceased, we notionally assess the income of the deceased at Rs.22,000/- per month. The claimants are entitled to an addition of 40% of the assessed income under the head of loss of future prospects of the deceased. The appropriate multiplier would be ‘18’ and deduction would be 50% towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor at the time of accident. Each of the claimants are entitled to a consortium of Rs.44,000/- which includes 10% escalation. Similarly Rs.16,500/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses which includes 10% escalation. The compensation carries interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the amount. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the liability is unaltered. Hence, the claimants are entitled to the following modified compensation: 1 Loss of dependency (Rs.22,000 + 40% x 12 x 18 – 50%) Rs.33,26,400/- 2 Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- each Rs.1,32,000/- - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 to appellants No.1 to 3) 3 Transportation of dead body and Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- 4 Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Total Rs.34,91,400/- Less: 20% contributory negligence Rs.6,98,280/- Total compensation Rs.27,93,120/- 10. For the aforementioned reasons we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA No.103784/2023 filed by the claimants is allowed in part. ii. MFA No.102632/2023 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. iii. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal in MVC.No.2302/2021 dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified and the claimants are entitled to total compensation of ₹27,93,120/-. iv. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. v. The Insurance Company shall deposit the aforesaid compensation amount along with - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB MFA No. 103784 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023 accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. vi. The apportionment & disbursement of the aforesaid compensation shall be made as per award of Tribunal. vii. Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. viii. Draw modified award accordingly. ix. No order as to costs. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE CLK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21