- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25035-DB MFA No. 8157 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8157 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: T. RAMALINGAIAH S/O KAPANAIAH @ THIMMAIAH R/AT SARVODAYA STREET, KOPPA TOWN, MADDUR TALUK-571428. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY P., ADV.) AND: 1. K. HOMBALE GOWDA S/O LATE KEMPE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SMT. SHYLAJA W/O HOMBALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO:1 AND 2 ARE R/OF KEELARA VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571426. 3. R. MANJUNATHA S/O T. RAMALINGAIAH @ THIMMAIAH R/AT SARVODAYA STREET, KOPPA TOWN, MADUR TALUK-571428. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25035-DB MFA No. 8157 of 2016 4. RIYAZ PASHA S/O PYARE JAN, R/AT 382/1, 3RD CROSS, C-BLOCK, GHOUSIYA NAGAR, MYSORE-570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. L. SREENIVAS, ADV. FOR R1, R3 SERVED, V/O DATED:30/03/2021 NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1463/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & CJM, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.16,19,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) This appeal is by the respondent No.2 in MVC No.1463 of 2013, challenging the common Judgment dated 20th September 2016 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the parents of the deceased K.H. Adarsha filed claim petition under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25035-DB MFA No. 8157 of 2016 Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum for the death of their son in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 25th March 2012. It is stated in the claim petition that on the fateful day, when Adarsha was proceeding along with his grandmother as a pillion Rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51/E-7073, and when they were passing through agricultural lands of K.N. Jayaram Gowda, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09/EL-5947, being ridden in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle on which K.H. Adarsha was proceeding. Due the impact, both the rider and the pillion rider fell and sustained grievous injuries and said K.H. Adarsha, succumbed to the injuries. Hence, claim petition was filed stating that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by the rider of the offending motorcycle and Respondents 2 and 3, who are the owners of motorcycle, are liable to pay the compensation. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was aged 21 years as on the date of accident. The deceased was an agriculturist. Apart from that he was doing milk vending business and also was a distributor of manure, by which he was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25035-DB MFA No. 8157 of 2016 earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It is stated that the death occurred on account of negligent riding of the motorcycle by its riders and since respondents 2 and 3 are owners of motorcycles, they are liable to pay the compensation. 3. In response to notice, Respondents 1 and 2 appeared before this Court and put forth their defence as to admitting the accident and as to registration of case in Crime No.544 of 2012 by Keragodu Police Station. According to Respondent No.1, he was riding the motorcycle cautiously, whereas the deceased, in an attempt to overtake a vehicle going in front of his motorcycle, had gone to his extreme right and had collided with the motorcycle of the respondent. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 would contend that neither he nor his insurer are liable to pay the compensation and sought for dismissal of claim petition. The Respondents have also taken up the contention that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed issues. To prove the case of the Petitioners, two - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25035-DB MFA No. 8157 of 2016 witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and 21 documents were marked as per Exhibits P1 to P21. The Respondents have not adduced any evidence on their behalf. Having heard the arguments, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.16,19,000/- and directed Respondents 2 and 3 to pay the entire compensation amount within two months from the date of the order, failing which, interest shall be paid at the rate of 9% per annum. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, Respondent No.2-T. Ramalingaiah has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant Smt. Archana Murthy. P, submits that the impugned Judgment and award is bad in law and against facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal has clearly held that there has been a collision between two vehicles and hence, answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative. The decision of the Tribunal holding that the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-09/EL-5964 was rash and negligent is not correct. She further submits that the Respondents 1 and 2 have not produced any document to show - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25035-DB MFA No. 8157 of 2016 that deceased was an agriculturist and was into milk vending and manure distribution, and in the absence of the same, the Tribunal taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- per month is on the lower side. She fairly submits that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each awarded towards love and affection is on the higher side. She further submits that the appellant is father of deceased who was riding the two- wheeler as on the date of accident, but he is not the owner of the motorcycle. Though, the Tribunal was not provided with material on record to show as to who was the owner of the motorcycle, it has come to the conclusion that Respondent No.4 is the owner of vehicle, and having held so has strangely fastened liability on the appellant, herein, which is an error committed by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel further submits that the appellant has filed IA.I of 2017, under Order XLI Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking to produce 'B' Register extract as an additional document, wherein it is stated that he is not the owner of the motorcycle bearing No.KA- 09/EL-5964, either on the date of accident or prior to it. The learned counsel would further submit that respondent No.1 has been acquitted in the criminal case as there is no rash and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25035-DB MFA No. 8157 of 2016 negligent act on the part of respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.4 being the owner of the motorcycle is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, she sought to allow the Application. 6. As against this, Sri K.L. Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 would submit that respondent No.3 being the rider of the motorcycle and respondent No.4 being the owner of the motorcycle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Though the respondent No.3 is acquitted by the Criminal Court, the same is not a ground to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3 as the Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of motorcycle, the Judgment of Criminal Court is not binding on the Tribunal. The Tribunal has to assess the evidence independently and accordingly assessing the material placed before it, the Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of respondent No.3. Therefore, respondents 3 and 4 are jointly liable to pay the compensation. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25035-DB MFA No. 8157 of 2016 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have examined the materials placed before us. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we have received the document 'B' Register extract filed along with Application under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, which is not disputed by the other side. Since 'B' Register extract was not produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has held that respondents 2 and 3 are liable to pay the compensation, which is not correct. The 'B' Register extract shows that, at the time of accident, one Riyaz Pasha was the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09/EL-5964 and as on the date of accident, respondent No.3 was riding the motorcycle and hence, the Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. Mere acquittal in the criminal case is not a ground to dismiss the claim petition against the rider of motorcycle. The rider of the motorcycle and the owner of the motorcycle-Riyaz Pasha are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly it is ordered. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25035-DB MFA No. 8157 of 2016 8. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, petitioner-claimants have not produced any legal document or evidence to show the actual income of the deceased as on the date of accident. Hence, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- per month. The same is not in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the guidelines issued by the Authority, for the accidents of the year 2012, the notional income is to be taken at Rs.7,000/- per month. Accordingly, the same is taken in this appeal. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% is to be added towards future prospects and if that is added, the income comes to Rs.9,800/- per month. Since the deceased was a bachelor, out of the total income, 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 24 years based on the documentary evidence and according to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25035-DB MFA No. 8157 of 2016 (2009)6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier would be 18. Then the compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs.10,58,400/- (Rs.4,900/- x 12 x 18). The Tribunal has awarded higher compensation towards love and affection which is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of PRANAY SETHI (supra). Keeping in mind the judgment of Supreme Court, the revised compensation to which the appellants are entitled, would be as follows: Sl.No. Head Amount (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency 10,58,400.00 2. Towards loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 2) 80,000.00 3. Towards Loss of estate 15,000.00 4. Towards funeral expenses 15,000.00 Total 11,68,400.00 9. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Appeal is allowed in part; ii) Judgment and award dated 20th September 2016 passed in MVC No.1463 of 2013 by I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mandya, is modified - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25035-DB MFA No. 8157 of 2016 holding that the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.11,68,400/- as against Rs.16,19,000/- awarded by the Tribunal; iii) It is made clear that the compensation carries interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation; iv) Respondents 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation; v) Respondent No.4-Riyaz Pasha shall deposit the compensation amount with interest before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment; vi) Draw award accordingly; vii) Registry to send the trial court records along with the copy of this judgment to the concerned Court forthwith. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45