- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36621 MFA No. 520 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.520 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PENKE PARVATHI, W/O LATE RAJU, @ PENKE NOOKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SRI. P. GANESH, @ PENKE GANESH, S/O LATE RAJU, @ PENKE NOOKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3. SRI. PENKE SIVA @ P SIVA W/O LATE RAJU, @ PENKE NOOKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT TANA CENTRE, NO.11-65, GOLLAPROLU, MANDLEM, CHEBROLU EAST, GODAWARI, ANDHRA PRADESH. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ”SRI SHANTHI TOWERS” 5TH FLOOR, NO.141, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36621 MFA No. 520 of 2022 LAYOUT, KASTURINAGAR, BANGALORE - 43 2. M/S TOYOTETSU INDIA AUTO PARTS PVT. LTD., ONSITE SUPPLIER PARK, BUILDING NO.7, TKMPL PLOT NO.1, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DIST-09 3. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, MANANDI PLAZA, ST. MARKS ROAD, BESIDE ST. MARKS HOTEL, BANGALORE - 01 4. THE HEAD MASTER, M/S OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOL, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 96. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SEETHA RAMA RAO B. C. AND SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATES FOR R1; SRI. K. J. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. H. S. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. N. GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY BY SET ASIDING THE APPOINTMENT OF NEGLIGENCE AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARD DATED 31.08.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1950/2019 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, (SCCH-3) BANGALORE, WITH COST AND INTEREST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36621 MFA No. 520 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.1950/2019 dated 31.08.2021 by the VII Addl. SCJ and ACMM, Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru, whereby the Tribunal had awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.10,21,200/-. The claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation as well questioning the contributory negligence that is fixed on the deceased at 20%. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. 2. It is the case of the claimants that on 12.02.2019 at about 8.00 a.m. the deceased was crossing the road on B.M. road, Kaniminike, at that time driver of the Etios car, drove it in rash and negligent manner, came from Bangalore towards Mysore side and dashed against the deceased. As a result, he fell down and suffered injuries. At the same time driver of one Mini bus came from Bangalore side drove it in rash and negligent manner, without keeping proper distance and the said bus wheel ran over the body of the deceased. As a result, he suffered severe head injury and immediately he was shifted to the hospital wherein he was declared as brought dead. Basing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36621 MFA No. 520 of 2022 on the evidence, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation as per the table given below: Sl. No. Heads of Compensation Amount awarded 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 8,71,200/- 2. Loss of spousal consortium Rs. 40,000/- 3. Loss of parental consortium Rs. 80,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 5. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 10,21,200/- 3. The Tribunal had held that there is negligence on the part of the driver of Etios car and also minibus as well the Tribunal had also held that when there was no pedestrian crossing as he was crossing the road the contributory negligence is fixed at 20% on the deceased and accordingly, awarded the compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ claimants submits that fixing the contributory negligence at 20% on the deceased is without any basis. It is submitted that when the clear negligence of both the drivers is established, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the contributory negligence on the deceased. It is further submitted that the compensation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36621 MFA No. 520 of 2022 that is awarded is not just and reasonable and the same needs to be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Companies submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered and fixed the contributory negligence on the deceased and there are no grounds to interfere. Even on the quantum also, it is a just and reasonable compensation and no interference is called for. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. This Court had perused the award impugned and the manner in which the accident has happened. It is a clear case where there is negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. However, there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, but in the considered opinion of the Tribunal, apportioning the same at 20% is on the higher side. In that view of the matter, the contributory negligence is apportioned at 45% on both the vehicles and 10% on the deceased. 7. Then coming to the compensation, the accident had taken place in the year 2019, the income has to be taken at - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36621 MFA No. 520 of 2022 Rs.14,000/- per month, 10% of future prospects would come to an amount of Rs.1,400/- i.e., Rs.15,400/- as there are two claimants 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses i.e., Rs.5,133/-. Then his contribution to the family is Rs.10,267/- (10,267X12X11)= Rs.13,55,244/- towards loss of dependency. Towards loss of consortium this Court is granting an amount of (44,000X2)=Rs.88,000/-. Towards funeral expenses this Court is granting an amount of Rs.36,000/-. 8. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another1, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. 9. The claimants are therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads of Compensation Compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal Compensation amount awarded by this Court 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 8,71,200/- 13,55,244/- 2. Loss of spousal consortium Rs. 40,000/- 88,000/- 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36621 MFA No. 520 of 2022 3. Loss of parental consortium Rs. 80,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 00/- 5. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 36,000/- 6. Legal expenses Rs. 00/- 10,000/- Total Rs. 10,21,200/- 14,89,244/- Enhanced amount Rs. 4,68,044/- 10. Altogether, the compensation comes to an amount of Rs.14,89,244/-. As the contributory negligence is fixed at 10% on the deceased, it comes to an amount of Rs.1,48,924/-, if the same is deducted, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.13,40,320/-. The Insurance Companies are liable to pay 50% of the same. 11. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is partly allowed by reducing the contributory negligence that is fixed on the deceased from 20% to 10% and on the other two vehicles at 45% each and the Insurance Companies are liable to pay an amount of Rs.13,40,320/-. i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36621 MFA No. 520 of 2022 ii) The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iii) The Insurance Companies shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. v) No costs. vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18