- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45250-DB MFA No. 325 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 382 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2021 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2021 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 325/2021: BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD DESAI CROSS, HUBLI NOW REP BY ITS THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD UNIT NO. 4, GOLDEN GEIGHTS 6TH FLOOR, 59TH C CROSS INDUSTRIAL SUBURAB 4TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALURU-560010 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RATHNA S M W/O LATE SRI MURIGESH R O NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. HARSHINI - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45250-DB MFA No. 325 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 382 of 2021 D/O LATE MURIGESH R O, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RATHNA S.M 3. SHASHIKALA, W/O RUDRAPPA ONKARI NOW AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 4. RUDRAPPA ONKARI, S/O MURUGEPPA ONKARI NOW AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO. 1852/C1, ASHIRVADA, 2ND CROSS, SS LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577004 5. SHAHULHAMMED K, S/O KADE MOHIDEEN, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O 15TH STREET, PADUKOTTAI, TAMIL NADU-622 001. 6. CHAKRA POLYMERS, No.15, NEW TOWN SOUTH STREET, MALAIKOVIL, THIRUVERAMBUR S.O …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN DODDABASAVARAJAPPA RYAKHA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4; VIDE ORDER DATED:15.07.2025, NOTICE TO R-5 & R-6 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.649/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND V MACT, DAVANGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.82,62,787/- WITH INTEREST AT 8 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF CLAIM PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 382/2021: BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD DESAI CROSS, HUBLI NOW REP BY ITS THE MANAGER, *Page No.2 retyped and replaced Vide Chamber Order dated:12.02.2026 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45250-DB MFA No. 325 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 382 of 2021 CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD UNIT NO.4, GOLDEN HEIGHTS 6TH FLOOR, 59TH C CROSS INDUSTRIAL SUBURAB 4TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-10 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNA S M W/O LATE SRI MURIGESH R O NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 1852/C1 ASHIRVADA, 2ND CROSS, SS LAYOUT DAVANAGERE-577004 2. SHAHULHAMMED K S/O KADE MOHIDEEN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT 15TH STREET, PADUKKOTTAI TAMILNADU-622001 3. CHAKRA POLYMERS NO 15, NEW TOWN SOUTH STREET MALAIKOVIL, THIRUVERAMBUR S.O ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA DODDABASARAJAPPA RYAKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE ORDER DATED:15.07.2025, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH; R-3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 11.02.2020, PASSED IN MVC NO.650/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND V-ADDITIONAL MACT, DAVANGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,07,814/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF THE CLAIM PETITION - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45250-DB MFA No. 325 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 382 of 2021 TILL ITS REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant. 2. These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 11.12.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC Nos.649/2017 and 650/2017 instituted by the respondents-claimants. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case as set out in the claim petition are that, on 20.02.2017 Murigesh Rudrappa Onkari (the deceased), his wife and daughter while proceeding towards Kottur of Bellary District via Sira on NH-4 in a car bearing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45250-DB MFA No. 325 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 382 of 2021 No.KA 02-ME-6257 met with an accident near Green lan hotel, Pattrehalli village of Hiriyur Taluk at about 8:00 a.m. with lorry bearing No.TN-45-AV-2264. Both the vehicles were proceeding on the same direction. It is not in dispute that the car driven by the deceased hit the lorry from behind. As a result, the deaceased died and his wife sustained injuries. 5. Mr. B. Pradeep, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has confined the argument only in respect of contributory negligence of the deceased who was driving the vehicle. He has submitted that the case of the claimant that the driver of the lorry suddenly took left turn, cannot be believed. The lorry was a loaded lorry and would be going at a maximum speed of 60-70 kms. He further submitted that even if it is believed that the driver of the lorry took sudden left turn, and that resulted in accident, the driver of the car was not maintaining the safe distance as provided under Regulations 23 of the Road Regulations, 1989. It is further submitted that in such a situation, the principle of res ipsa loquitur would be applicable as the impact of the accident on vehicles and the manner in which the accident occurred would suggest that it was the car which hit the lorry from behind as the driver of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45250-DB MFA No. 325 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 382 of 2021 car was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and not the driver of the lorry. He therefore, submits that even if the case of the claimants is to be believed, some amount of negligence has to be attributed by the driver of the car which hit the lorry from behind. 6. On the otherhand, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the accident was because of the sudden left turn taken by the driver of the lorry and it was not because of the driver of the car. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the appeal papers. 8. The accident took place at 8:00 a.m. on 20.02.2017. It is not in dispute that the car hit at the rear portion of the lorry which resulted in death of the deceased. As held in the judgment of Nishan Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 765, as regulations 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, we are of the view that the driver of the car was not keeping sufficient distance to the lorry. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45250-DB MFA No. 325 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 382 of 2021 9. Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, reads thus: “23. Distance from vehicles in front.—The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.” 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and the manner in which the accident was caused, we are of the considered view that the driver of the car also had contributed the accident. We, therefore, report the negligence at 70:30 between the driver of lorry and the driver of the car. We also find that the loss of dependency assessed by the Tribunal was just and fair, which does not require any interference except apportioning the negligence between the driver of the lorry and the driver of the car. 11. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation: HEADS Rs. Loss of dependency 78,28,020.00 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 X 4 dependents) 1,60,000.00 Loss of estate 15,000.00 Transportation of dead body and funeral 15,000.00 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45250-DB MFA No. 325 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 382 of 2021 expenses Medical expenses 3,64,767.00 TOTAL 83,82,787.00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 82,62,787.00 ENHANCED COMPENSATION 1,20,000.00 IN MFA No.382/2021 12. As in the connected appeal we have apportioned the liability at 70:30 we reduce the liability of the Insurance Company accordingly to 70% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation amount to injured claimant at Rs.2,07,840/- and 70% of it would come to Rs.1,45,488/-. Hence, the injured claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,45,488/-. 13. In the result, we pass the following O R D E R i. The appeals are allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled for 70% of the total compensation of Rs. 83,82,787/- as against Rs. 82,62,787/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45250-DB MFA No. 325 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 382 of 2021 iii. Any amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court is required to be remitted back to the Tribunal along with accrued interest and the balance amount shall be deposited by the Insurance company within 6 weeks along with 6% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. iv. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal. v. Draw modified award accordingly. vi. No order as to costs. (D K SINGH) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA