- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43924 MFA No. 5052 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5052 OF 2024(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT GVEERABHADRA COLONY, HASODI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA -577222. 2. CHAITRA R D/O RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT GVEERABHADRA COLONY, HASODI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA -577222. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.V.MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ANNAPPA S/O JAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, DRIVER OF TRACTOR, R/AT HUCHARAYA COLONY, KASHIPURA GATE VINOBHA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577201. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43924 MFA No. 5052 of 2024 2. SRI MANJUNATHA P., S/O PERUMAL, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, OWNER OF THE TRACTOR, R/AT VINAYAKA NAGAR, KACHANAKATTE, SHIVAMOGAA-577201. 3. SRI M.K.JANARDHANA BHAT S/O KRISHNA BHAT, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 3A. SMT SHAMALAMMA @ SHAMALAMMA, W/O LATE M K JANARDHANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT ASHOKA NAGAR, YEDEHALLI POST BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK 3B. SMT KAVITHA D/O LATE M K JANARDHANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT ASHOKA NAGAR, YEDEHALLI POST BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK. 3C. SMT SUMANA D/O LATE M K JANARDHANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT ASHOKA NAGAR, YEDEHALLI POST BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK. 3D. SMT NAYANA D/O LATE M K JANARDHANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT ASHOKA NAGAR, YEDEHALLI POST BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43924 MFA No. 5052 of 2024 7. THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, 16-1-44, S.N COMPLEX, BENDOORWELL, MANGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.C.BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 V/O/DATED: 13/02/2025- NOTICE TO R1 & R2 AND R3 (A TO D) ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.635/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SHIVAMOGGA, 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 SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43924 MFA No. 5052 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.635/2020 dated 15.06.2023 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Member, MACT at Shivamogga, whereby the contributory negligence is fixed at 50% on the claimant and 50% on the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimant is before this questioning the contributory negligence and also seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. The claim petition is filed by the claimants seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.63,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. It is the case of the claimants that on 18.09.2018 at about 8.30 pm., the deceased was proceeding on the motorcycle from Holebenavalli towards Shivamogga. When he reached near in front of Veerabhadrappa’s house, situated at Purale Village, Shivamogga, the deceased rode his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tractor and Trailer which was parked by the driver of the vehicle in the middle of the road negligently without giving any signal or parking light. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous head injury and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43924 MFA No. 5052 of 2024 shifted to M.C. Gann Hospital for treatment, where the doctor declared as brought dead. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation as per the table given below: Sl. No. Heads of Compensation Amount granted 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 17,85,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 4. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 18,55,000/- 3. The Tribunal had fixed the contributory negligence at 50% on the claimant as the FIR was registered against the driver of the vehicle as well as the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal had observed that on examination of Ex.P1 to 4, 7 and 16 and oral evidence of PW1 and 2, it reveals that firstly the accident occurred in front of one Veerabhadrappa's house, it means to say that the accident occurred within the village and Ex.P3- sketch discloses that the tractor was parked in front of Veerabhadrappa's house little bit away in the middle of the road. It means to say that the tractor was parked on the middle of the road. It is admitted as per police record, the tractor-trailer were parked in prohibited road side. At that time the rider of motorcycle came from - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43924 MFA No. 5052 of 2024 Holebenavalli towards Shivamogga side by riding in a rash and negligent manner from behind and hit the parked tractor trailer. Then the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the initial negligence is on the part of the driver of the tractor trailer and the next it is on the part of the deceased and accordingly, contributory negligence was apportioned at 50% on the deceased and 50% on the driver of the offending vehicle. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ claimants submits that the Tribunal had erroneously fixed the contributory negligence at 50% on the deceased. It is submitted that the accident had happened solely because of the negligence on the part of the owner of the tractor-trailer, who had parked the tractor on the middle of the road without the parking lights on, as the accident had taken place at about 8.30 p.m., and the deceased had failed to see the same, the accident had taken place. So there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is further submitted that when it comes to the compensation, under the conventional heads, the compensation amount that is awarded - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43924 MFA No. 5052 of 2024 by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and the same needs to be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4/ Insurance Company submits that the charge sheet is filed against both the deceased as well as the owner of the tractor- trailer. It is submitted that this accident had happened in the village and when it is the observation of the Tribunal that he was going in a rash and negligent manner, had he taken precautions this accident could have been avoided, as there is negligence on the part of both the deceased and the owner of the vehicle in parking the tractor-trailer, the Tribunal had rightly apportioned and fixed the contributory negligence at 50% on the deceased and 50% on the owner of the tractor- trailer. It is submitted that the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is also just and reasonable and no interference is called for. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Coming to the aspect of contributory negligence, the accident had taken place at 08.30 p.m. and it is in the village. Admittedly, part of the tractor- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43924 MFA No. 5052 of 2024 trailer was parked on the road and there are no parking lights on. So there is a clear negligence on the part of the owner of the tractor in parking the tractor-trailer almost in the middle of the road. Then coming to the deceased, had he been careful this accident would have been avoided, because this happened in the village not on the highway. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the contributory negligence can be apportioned at 70% on the owner of the tractor-trailer and 30% on the deceased. 7. Coming to the compensation, as far as loss of dependency is concerned, the Tribunal had rightly granted the compensation of an amount of Rs.17,85,000/- and no interference is called for. Towards loss of consortium this Court is granting an amount of (44000X2)=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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43924 MFA No. 5052 of 2024 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 Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 17,85,000/- 17,85,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- 88,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 00/- 4. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 36,000/- 5. Legal expenses Rs. 00/- 10,000/- Total Rs. 18,55,000/- 19,19,000/- Enhanced amount Rs. 64,000/- 10. Altogether, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of an amount of Rs.19,19,000/-. As the contributory negligence is fixed at 30% on the deceased, it comes to an amount of Rs.5,75,700/-, if the same is deducted, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.13,43,300/-. 11. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is partly allowed by reducing the contributory negligence that is fixed 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43924 MFA No. 5052 of 2024 on the deceased from 50% to 30% and the Insurance Company is liable to pay an amount of Rs.13,43,300/-. i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii) The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iii) Respondent No.4/Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per the award. iv) On 15.09.2025, the delay of 314 days is condoned on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period. v) No costs. vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13