- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36338 MFA No. 6529 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6529 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RADHA W/O LATE. RAMESHA.G.K, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. KUM. MEGHANA D/O LATE. RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 3. MR. KISHORE.R S/O LATE. RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 4. MALLANNA S/O LATE. KUVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 5. MADAMMA W/O MALLANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT DANDU PALYA, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36338 MFA No. 6529 of 2021 6. SHIVANANDA.K S/O KRISHNAPPA, NO.15 NEAR KUPPANNA LAYOUT, KANNURAHALLI ROAD, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 V/O DATED 11.09.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 03.09.2021, PASSED IN MVC NO.7016/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE V-ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV ACMM., MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-20), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.23,95,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.7016/2019 dated 03.09.2021 by the V Additional Small Causes Judge & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, whereby the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.23,95,000/- to the claimants, the Insurance Company is before this Court. 2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36338 MFA No. 6529 of 2021 road traffic accident. The facts of the case are that on 06.10.2019 at about 2:45 p.m., while the deceased was walking on the side of the road, near Bala Gangappa shop, Dandupalya, Hosakote, Bangalore Rural District, a Mahindra Maxitruck came in a rash and negligent manner in high speed at reversing manner and dashed to the deceased, due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of the body and succumbed on the same day. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the accident had taken place while the driver of the offending vehicle was reversing the vehicle and there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Secondly, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses, but the Tribunal had deducted 1/4th. On these two grounds, the Insurance Company is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ claimants submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered and there is no evidence adduced by the Insurance Company to show that there is contributory negligence on the part of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36338 MFA No. 6529 of 2021 deceased. It is submitted that when there are five claimants, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses and the Tribunal had rightly deducted and granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The first contention of the Insurance Company is with regard to the contributory negligence. The Police after the full fledged investigation had rightly held that the negligence is on the driver of the offending vehicle. The contention of the Insurance Company is with regard to the contributory negligence. If that is the case when the material on record points out at the guilt of the driver of the offending vehicle, if the Insurance Company's case is that there is contributory negligence they ought to have adduced necessary evidence. Admittedly, in this case, no evidence is adduced. In that view of the matter, the submission of the counsel for the Insurance Company cannot be appreciated. The second contention is with regard to the compensation. The claimants are five in number and it is the contention of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36338 MFA No. 6529 of 2021 Insurance Company that the father is not depending on the deceased. Without any evidence, this submission also cannot be considered and the Tribunal rightly had deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses. Hence, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. i. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transmitted to the Tribunal. ii. No costs. iii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8