- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29633-DB MFA No. 5934 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5934 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KAMALAKSHI W/O. LATE VENKAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 2. MR. PRAMITH KUMAR S/O. LATE VENKAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.3-63 (11B) RAMADASA NAGARA KALLAGUDDE, PALLAKERE BAJAL POST MANGALURU-575 007. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI GURUPRASAD B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIV. OFFICE: BHARATH BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, P.M. RAO ROAD MANGALURU-575 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. MOHAMMED AGED MAJOR S/O. MOIDEEN KUTTY RESIDENT OF 5/274 THAMEEM MANZIL PAIVALIKE POST Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29633-DB MFA No. 5934 of 2017 KASARGOD-671 348. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.U. POONACHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25.05.2021, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH) * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1038 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 28.10.2016 passed in MVC No.1038/2015, by learned IV Addl. District Judge & Member, MACT, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,55,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. However, the Tribunal held 75% contributory negligence on the offending vehicle and remaining 25% on the deceased. Being - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29633-DB MFA No. 5934 of 2017 aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Tribunal is as under:- On 24.06.2015, at about 2.10 p.m., one Venkappa was crossing the road to proceed towards his work place near Jeppinamogaru Dwara Mangaluru ensuring zero traffic movement, at that time, a car bearing Registration No.KL-14/P-3212 driven by its driver at a high speed in rash and negligent manner came from pumpwell side and dashed to Venkappa. Due to the said impact, Venkappa was thrown on the road and he sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately Venkappa was shifted to Fr. Muller's Hospital, Kankanady, Mangaluru and he succumbed to the injuries on 26.06.2015. 4. The claimants filed a petition under section 166 of M.V. Act on the ground that claimant No.1 is wife of deceased - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29633-DB MFA No. 5934 of 2017 Venkappa and claimant No.2 is the son of the deceased. The deceased was aged 59 years, hale and healthy, a Senior Mechanic and working as a Fitter/Mechanic at Bharath Garage, Jeppinamogaru and drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- p.m. Due to untimely death of deceased Venkappa, they have lost the sole bread earner of the family and hence, they have sought for enhancement of compensation. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the claimants and respondent No.1-Insurance company and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal considering the evidence of the claimants and exhibited documents at Exs-P1 to 11, awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,41,400/-(75%) with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 7. Sri. Guruprasad B.R., learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal without considering the material on record has wrongly saddled liability of 25% on the deceased, which is unjust and improper. The Tribunal ought to have saddled entire negligence on the part of the driver of the car, as the driver of the car had not applied - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29633-DB MFA No. 5934 of 2017 brake at the time of the accident. Consequently, the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- p.m., which is on the lower side, inasmuch as, the notional income of the deceased is to be considered at Rs.9,000/- as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru and The High Court Legal Service Committee, Bengaluru. The Tribunal has failed to award fair and reasonable compensation under other heads. Hence, learned counsel sought for allowing the appeal. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including the judgment of the Tribunal, the following points would arise for our consideration:- 1. Whether the Tribunal has rightly chosen to saddle liability to the extent of 25% on the part of the deceased? 2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it require enhancement? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29633-DB MFA No. 5934 of 2017 9. Insofar as contributory negligence is concerned, from the perusal of the evidence of PW.1, documentary evidence as per Ex-P1 complaint, Ex-P2 FIR, Ex-P4 spot mahazar, Ex-P7 spot sketch, Ex-P9 charge sheet, it clearly establishes that under Ex-P1 complaint, allegation was made against the driver of the car, which came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, who was crossing the road. As per Ex-P9, final report/charge sheet, Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the driver of the car. 10. The contents of the charge sheet are not disputed by the Insurance company. From the perusal of the spot mahazar Ex-P4, and spot sketch Ex-P7, it clearly establishes that there is straight road on the spot of the accident and the deceased was crossing the road near divider and he came extremely on the right side, which resulted in the accident. If we apply res ipsa loquitor, it appears that the accident occurred in the middle of the road. Hence, the driver of the car came with high speed and dashed to the deceased. However, he could have applied the brake as it is a light motor vehicle. Hence, this is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction and saddle liability on the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29633-DB MFA No. 5934 of 2017 offending car to the extent of 80% from 75% and 20% on the deceased from 25%. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal as regards contributory negligence is modified to that extent. 11. In so far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- p.m., which is on meager side. The accident is of the year 2015. No documentary evidence is placed on record with regard to income of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 59 years. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the circular issued by The Karnataka Legal Services Authority and The High Court Legal Services Committee, we deem it appropriate to reassess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m.. The respondent have not disputed this aspect. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, the multiplier applicable to the age of deceased is '9'. The deceased has left behind his wife and son and therefore, proper deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd. The Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29633-DB MFA No. 5934 of 2017 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has rightly considered an addition of 10% of assessed income to the future prospects, since the deceased was self-employed and below the age of 60 years. Thus the loss of dependency is reckoned as under:- Rs.9,000/- +10% - 1/3rd x 12 x 9=Rs.7,12,800/- 12. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards conveyance expenses, Rs.1.00 lakh towards 'loss of love and affection', Rs.1.00 lakh towards 'loss of consortium', and Rs.50,000/-towards 'loss of estate'. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and the dictum laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi case stated supra, the claimants are entitled to Rs.96,000/- (Rs.40000 x 2 +20% escalation) towards 'loss of consortium', Rs.18,000/-(Rs.15,000/- +20%) towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000 +20%) towards 'funeral expenses'. Page No.8 Retyped and Replaced Vide Court Order dated 17/04/2026 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29633-DB MFA No. 5934 of 2017 13. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.40,200/- towards 'medical expenses', which is fair and reasonable. Hence, no interference is called for in that regard. 14. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:- Compensation under different Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 7,12,800/- Loss of consortium 96,000/- Loss of estate 18,000/- Funeral expenses 18,000/- Medical expenses 40,200/- TOTAL 8,85,000/- Less 20% 7,08,000/- Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 6,41,400/- BALANCE 66,000/- Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,08,000/- as against Rs.6,41,400/- awarded by the tribunal. 15. Accordingly, we pass the following:- ORDER 1. The appeal is allowed in part. 2. The judgment and award dated 28.10.2016 passed by IV Additional District Judge and Member, MACT, Page No.9 Retyped and Replaced Vide Court Order dated 17/04/2026 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29633-DB MFA No. 5934 of 2017 Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in MVC.No.1038/2015 is modified to the extent stated herein above. 3. The claimants are entitled for an additional enhanced compensation of Rs.66,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 4. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.7,08,000/- (20% contributory negligence of deceased) as against Rs.6,41,400/-. 5. The Insurance company-respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount with 6% p.a. interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 6. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit shall be made in terms of the order of the Tribunal. 7. Draw modified award accordingly. Page No.10 Retyped and Replaced Vide Court Order dated 17/04/2026 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29633-DB MFA No. 5934 of 2017 8. Registry is directed to send the copy of this Judgment to the Tribunal alongwith Tribunal records. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55