- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5141-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201208 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S.B.TEMPLE ROAD, DIST. KALABURAGI-585102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRILATA W/O. SRINIVAS, AGE 24 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. KHANDERAYANPALLI, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO.4-45, SHETGAR BUILDING, M.B.NAGAR COLONY, KALABURAGI-585102. 2. SNEHA D/O. SRINIVAS AGE 9 MONTHS, MINOR U/G OF HER MOTHER BY NAME SRILATA W/O. SRINIVAS, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KHANDERAYANPALLI, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585102. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5141-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2022 3. MANJULA W/O. MALLAPPA D/O. NAGAPPA (WIDOW), AGE 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KHANDERAYANPALLI, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585102. 4. DEVINDRA S/O. NAGAPPA, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. KHANDERAYANPALLI, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585102. 5. ANANTAYYA S/O. TIRUMALU, AGE 40 YEARS, OCC. OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-32-A-5572, R/O. ADAKI, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; V/O. DATED 03.09.2025, NOTICE TO R5 DISPENSED WTIH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT, SEDAM IN MVC NO. 424/2020 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5141-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This appeal is by the appellant/insurance company, calling in question the judgment and award dated 30.03.2022 in MVC No.422/2020 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC & MACT, Sedam, on the ground of liability i.e. contributory negligence so also quantum of compensation. 2. The date of the accident involvement of the vehicle, the death of the Srinivas Nagappa Pujari are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to the contributory negligence which ought to have been saddled on the rider of the motorcycle so also the quantum of compensation. 3. Heard Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Corporation and Sri. Babu H.Metagudda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Vide order dated 03.09.2025 notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5141-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2022 4. Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer with all vehemence submits that as per the police records especially the spot the offending Lorry was proceeding from Sedam towards Kodangal. When it reached near the Anantpur cross, the rider of the motorcycle who came from Anantpur to go towards Khanderayanpalli abruptly, has taken his vehicle on his right side without any signal though the driver of the lorry has taken the lorry on the his extreme right side to avoid the accident. However, the rider of the motorcycle who was in a rash negligent way crossed the road on his ride side to proceed towards Khanderayanpalli abruptly without noticing the oncoming vehicle collided on the hind side of the lorry suffered injuries resulting in his death. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and only on the premise that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the lorry, answered Issue No.1 against the driver of the lorry and fastened the entire - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5141-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2022 liability on the driver of the lorry and made the insurance company to pay the entire compensation. 5. So far as quantum is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation, looking to the facts of the case, wherein the deceased was 26 years and the claimants are wife, minor daughter, sister and major brother but shown as student at the age of 28 years. The Tribunal has taken the income towards personal expenditure at 1/4th and awarded compensation, which requires reconsideration. 6. Refuting to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation. Sri. Babu H.Metagudda with all vehemence submits that the case was registered against the driver of the offending lorry and the police after investigation have filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending Lorry. As per the police, it is the driver of the lorry who is responsible for the accident. The Tribunal after going through entire materials on record has answered Issue No.1 against the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5141-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2022 driver of the lorry that he is responsible for the accident and accordingly, answered the same in affirmative, which is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 7. So far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the entire materials placed before it, taken the income as fixed under the chart prepared by the Legal Service Authority for the year 2020 at Rs.13,750/- and added 40% towards future prospectus as the deceased was 26 years as on date of death and applied appropriate multiplier of 17 and awarded appropriate compensation under the conventional heads. The Tribunal having considered that the daughter was a widow and brother was pursing his studies were dependent on the deceased, as such Tribunal rightly considered the deduction towards personal expenses at 1/4th and awarded appropriate compensation. However, he submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under 10% escalation as well as loss of filial consortium towards the other two claimants. In these - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5141-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2022 circumstances, the compensation awarded does not call for any interference. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers and trial Court records. 9. The point that would arise for our consideration are as follows. 1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the entire liability on the driver of the lorry and if it is in negative, whether any contributory negligence required to be fastened on the rider of the motorcycle. If so, at what rate? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal befits within the expression of ‘just compensation‘? 10. Our answer to the above points for consideration Point No.1 : In the negative and requires - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5141-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2022 reconsideration fixing the liability on the rider of the motorcycle at 20% and on the driver of the lorry at 80%. Point No.2 : In affirmative, for the following: REASONS 11. Point No.1: It is no doubt, true that the police have registered the case and filed chargesheet against the driver of the lorry. But a perusal of spot sketch, which is part of police record clearly goes against the rider of the motorcycle who was shown to be coming from Anathpur to go towards KandrayanaPalli and in the manner the accident has taken place, wherein the driver of the offering lorry tried all his best to avoid the accident, by taking the vehicle on the extreme edge of right side but the accident caused due to the negligence on the part of the rider. The motorcycle collided with the hind portion of the lorry, as a result, he came under the rear wheel and succumbed to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5141-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2022 his injuries. In the circumstances, the Tribunal in its judgment overlooked this aspect of the matter; consequently, it placed the entire liability on the driver of the offending lorry. The same is erroneous requires reconsideration. Applying in the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur liability is apportioned as 80% on the driver of the offending lorry and 20% on the rider of the motorcycle, accordingly the point is answered in favour of insurer. 12. So far as quantum is concerned, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the income fixed under the chart, added 40% towards future prospects, and awarded appropriate compensation accordingly considering the dependency as rightly contended by learned counsel for claimants. Though the compensation awarded under filial consortium is on the lower side, and 10% escalation not awarded on the compensation on conventional head in the absence of any appeal by the claimants, the compensation awarded is retained as the same appears to be just and proper. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5141-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2022 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 30.03.2022, in MVC No.424/2020, passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & MACt, Sedam is modified; iii) The finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is answered as partly in affirmative holding the rider of the motorcycle has contributed 20% towards the accident and the insurer is made liable to only to the extent of 80% of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry. iv) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forth with for disbursement. v) The balance compensation to the extent of 80% liability now redetermined by this Court shall be deposited by the appellant/insurance company before the concerned Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. vi) The apportionment as well as disbursement are kept in tact. vii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT:JLR