- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47739 MFA No. 2050 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2050 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAVIKUMAR. K S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. SMT GOWRAMMA D/O KALAPPA, W/O RAVIKUMAR K, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: DODDA KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, IBASAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL-560 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S RELIANCE GEN.INS.CO.LTD., MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, EAST WING, NEAR CITI BANK, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. SRINIVAS N.M S/O MUNICHOWDAPPA, 10TH WARD, Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47739 MFA No. 2050 of 2023 NILERI BIDALUR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL -560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 13.10.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3993/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV A.C.M.M, MEMBER, M.A.C.T,. MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02.11.2022 passed by the V Additional Small Causes Judge & Member, MACT, Bengaluru in M.V.C.No.3993/2021 (for short 'the Tribunal'), seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47739 MFA No. 2050 of 2023 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 26.08.2021 at about 7.15 p.m., the deceased Kiran was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-43-R-4859 at Sulibele Ibasapura road; near Arasanahalli, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing registration No.AP-01-Y- 592. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 4. As per the claim petition, the deceased was aged about 18 years and he was a student studying in a P.U. College. The claimants are his parents. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 was the insurer and respondent No.2 was the owner of the said vehicle. Respondent No.1 in its written statement denied the petition averments and denied its liability to pay the compensation and it also contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. He was a minor and was not having driving license. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47739 MFA No. 2050 of 2023 6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues, recorded the evidence and on appreciation of the materials on record, held that accident occurred due to contributory negligence of deceased as well as driver of the offending vehicle in the ratio of 35%:65%. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased as Rs.14,500, added 40% income towards future prospects, deducted 50% of the amount towards personal expenses and awarded following amount of compensation. 7. The claimants preferred this appeal mainly on two grounds. One is that the deceased had not at all contributed for the accident in question as he was going on the left side of the road and the driver of the lorry, who was going ahead of the motorcycle suddenly stopped the vehicle. In these circumstances, the deceased, without any alternative, had to hit the back side of the offending vehicle. Therefore, question of the negligence of the deceased does not arise. Secondly, it is contended that income of the deceased was taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. As per the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA, income ought to be taken as Rs.15,000/- per month. The deceased was studying in PUC. Therefore, his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47739 MFA No. 2050 of 2023 income has to be assessed slightly more than the said notional income. With these reasons prayed to allow the appeal. 8. The learned counsel for insurer submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is proper. There is no requirement to enhance the compensation or to hold that the lorry driver alone was responsible for the accident. He further contends that the deceased was a minor, approximately 17 years old, according to the records submitted by the claimants. Moreover, the deceased was driving the vehicle without valid license and had failed to maintain a proper distance between vehicles at the time of the incident. The Tribunal should have concluded that the contribution of the deceased to the accident was more than that of the lorry driver. However, the Tribunal restricted his responsibility only to an extent of 35%. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 9. The fact of the accident, death of Kiran S/o Ravikumar in the said accident are not in dispute. The manner in which accident occurred is also not in dispute. Respondent- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47739 MFA No. 2050 of 2023 insurer has not challenged the impugned judgment. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. 10. Claimant No.1 was an eye witness to the incident. According to him, there was a distance of 20 feet between both the vehicles prior to the accident. The driver of the lorry, who was going ahead of the motorcycle, drove his vehicle in high speed and without any indication suddenly stopped his vehicle that resulted in collision between both the vehicles. To rebut the said evidence, respondents have not examined any eye witness. RW-1 is an official of the insurance company and RW-2 is the Investigating Officer, who had conducted the investigation. In the evidence, RW-1 supported the contentions of the claimant. Therefore, he was treated as a hostile witness and was cross-examined by the attorney. The said procedure followed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. He had not given evidence contrary to the investigation to treat him as hostile witness. Merely he did not support the defence of the insurer, cannot be a ground to treat him as hostile witness. It is not in accordance with Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47739 MFA No. 2050 of 2023 11. Looking at the charge sheet and its enclosures there is a contribution of the deceased in causing the accident. He was a minor at the time of accident, aged about 17 years and he was riding 350cc motorcycle on the public road without holding a driving license. There are no materials on record to show that he had knowledge of riding the vehicle. Under these circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal regarding his contribution for causing accident in question holds water. However, the extent of contribution held by the Tribunal is incorrect. Considering the facts and circumstances, the contribution of the deceased is taken as 20% and remaining 80% is negligence of driver of the lorry. Therefore, it appears the driver of offending vehicle did not enter the witness box to support the contentions of the insurer. 12. According to the claimants, deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken income as Rs.14,250/-. It is not uncommon in our country that minors are also compelled to work to meet family expenses due to poverty of parents. They shall not be permitted to do hazardous work, which is prohibited under the law. Considering this, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47739 MFA No. 2050 of 2023 Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the claimant as Rs.15,000/- per month, as per the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities. The remaining calculation of compensation by the Tribunal is not in dispute. 13. Accordingly, claimants are entitled to following amount of compensation. Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency (Rs.15,000+40%x12x18/2) 22,68,000 Loss of consortium 80,000 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Total 23,78,000 Less 20% contributory negligence. 4,75,600 Total 19,02,400 Amount awarded by the Tribunal 13,59,000 Enhanced 5,43,400 Rounded off 5,44,000 Claimants are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount. 14. Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47739 MFA No. 2050 of 2023 15. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 02.11.2022 passed in MVC.No.3993/2021 on the file of the V Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV A.C.M.M, MEMBER, M.A.C.T,. Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The respondent No.1 -Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The remaining portion of the award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. vi) Draw award accordingly. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47739 MFA No. 2050 of 2023 Registry is directed to send back the trial Court record along with the copy of the judgment to the Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47