- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2507 MFA No. 200705 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200705/2020 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HAMPAMMA W/O MAREPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. MAREPPA S/O RAMANNA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, BOTH ARE R/O YAPALAPARVI VILLAGE, TQ. SINDHANUR, NOW R/O KASBE CAMP, TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI NINGANNA S/O ERANNA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: RIDER OF MOTORCYCLE NO.KA-36/EK-5695, R/O HIREDINNI VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584 123. 2. SRI YALLAPPA S/O DODDA YALLAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-36/EK-5695, Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2507 MFA No. 200705 of 2020 R/O HIREDINNI CAMP, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584 123. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVL. OFFICE, RAICHUR-584 101. 4. PRAHLAD S/O BASAPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF TRACTOR & TRAILER NO.KA-36/TC-5518 & TRAILER CHASSIS NO.21MTEW17/18, R/O POTNAL VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584 123. 5. SHARANABASAVA S/O SANNA YALLAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR & TRAILER NO.KA-36/TC-5518 & TRAILER CHASSIS NO.21MTEW17/18, R/O POTNAL VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584 123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE, FOR R3; R1 & R2 - SERVED; R4 & R5 - V/O DTD. 22.04.2025 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2020 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR, IN MVC NO.186/2018. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2507 MFA No. 200705 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI) 1. Though this matter is slated for admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 06.03.2018 the deceased Sharanabasava was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KA-36/EB-2199 to his Fertilizer Shop at Potnal, at about 4.00 p.m., on Potnal-Jeenur Road, the respondent No.1 Ninganna came on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-36/EK-5695, which was not yet registered at that time, but was insured with respondent No.2; caused the accident by colliding with the motorcycle of the deceased. After the deceased fell down and sustained injuries, a Tractor-Trailer-Unit (T.T. unit) bearing No.KA-36/TC-5518 came from Potnal side and ran over the head of the deceased Sharanabasava. The accident was witnessed by one Nagaraj S/o. Mallayya Nayak. The father of the deceased lodged a complaint to the concerned Police on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2507 MFA No. 200705 of 2020 next day, mentioning that though he came to know about the name of the driver of the T.T. Unit, he could not ascertain the name of the rider of the offending motorcycle. The Police after investigation filed charge-sheet against both the tort-feasors i.e., rider of the offending motorcycle as well as the driver of the T.T. Unit. The T.T. Unit was driven by respondent No.4 – Prahalad and owned by respondent No.5 Sharanabasava, whereas, the offending motorcycle was ridden by respondent No.1 – Ninganna owned by respondent No.2 – Yallappa and insured by respondent No.3 – Insurance Company. The petitioners being the parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. 4. On service of notice, respondent Nos.1 to 5 appeared through their counsels. The respondent No.2 contended that there was no such negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, but the negligence was on the part of the driver of the T.T.Unit. Inter alia, he also contended that the rider of the motorcycle was having valid driving license and the two wheeler having insured by respondent No.3, it is liable to pay any compensation in case the Tribunal finds that respondent No.2 is liable. Respondent No.1 adopted written - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2507 MFA No. 200705 of 2020 statement of respondent No.2. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 did not file any written statement. 5. Respondent No.3 – Insurance Company denied all the contentions of the petitioners and it contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not having a valid driving license and therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation amount. Inter alia, it also denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. 6. On the basis of the above contentions, appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and an eyewitness was examined as PW2. Exs.P1 to P9 were marked in evidence. The official of respondent No.3 was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. 7. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.13,71,000/- to the petitioners and fastened the liability on respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the extent of 50% and respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the extent of 50%. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court in appeal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2507 MFA No. 200705 of 2020 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though the charge-sheet has been filed against the rider of the offending motorcycle, i.e., respondent No.1 and the driver of the T.T. Unit, i.e., respondent No.4, the petitioners are unconcerned about the contributory negligence of the two vehicles involved. He submits that so far as the petitioners are concerned, it is the case of composite and therefore, the bifurcation of the negligence between respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the one side and respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the other side is not applicable to the petitioners. He will be at liberty to claim against any one of the tortfeasors and therefore, the liability has been fastened jointly and severally as against all the respondents. His second prong of the arguments is that the Tribunal has considered notional income at lower rate and the deceased was working in a Fertilizer Shop and therefore, that aspect should have been considered by it. However, he fairly submits that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of income of the deceased towards his personal expenses instead of 50%. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company would submit that the charge-sheet has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2507 MFA No. 200705 of 2020 been filed against respondent No.1 for the offence of not having a valid driving license and therefore, the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the respondent No.3. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is required in the same. 10. A perusal of the records would show that respondent No.4 – Prahlad was the driver of the T.T. Unit and respondent No.1 – Ninganna was rider of the motorcycle which was unnumbered as on the date of the accident. The FIR does not show the name of respondent No.1 – Ninganna as it was not known to the complainant at that time. Later, Police investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet showing respondent No.1 – Ninganna to be riding the motorcycle without valid driving license. However, offence under Section 3 read with 181 of the M.V. Act was not fastened upon respondent No.4 – Prahlad. 11. The careful perusal of the records would show that the Insurance Company has examined its official as RW1. A perusal of Ex.R1, which was marked by way of confronting the same to RW1, would show that the rider – Ninganna was - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2507 MFA No. 200705 of 2020 having a driving license to drive a motorcycle valid from 08.09.2014 to 31.12.2023. Therefore, the contention of respondent No.3 – Insurance company that the rider – Ninganna was not having valid driving license is not sustainable in law. The charge-sheet may be an erroneous charge-sheet and if Ex.R1 was placed before the Criminal Court, obviously, the charge-sheet filed under Section 3 of the M.V. Act would have fallen to the ground. 12. In view of the above, the liability of respondent No.3 to indemnify respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot be absolved. This aspect has been considered by the Tribunal in Para 9 of the impugned judgment. 13. Coming to the contention of composite negligence, it is evident that the deceased – Sharanabasava fell down after collision with the motorcycle driven by respondent No.1. Thereafter, respondent No.4 drove his T.T. Unit on the head of the deceased. Therefore, the negligence attracted to the vehicles at 50% cannot be found fault with. However, the deceased had no role to play in the accident. No such evidence is available on record, which would indicate that there was any - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2507 MFA No. 200705 of 2020 contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, so far as petitioners are concerned, it is a case of composite negligence and the petitioners are at liberty to go against any one of the tort-feasors. A judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh vs. Syed Munned Ahmad and Others1 and subsequent judgment in the case of KSRTC vs. Arun @ Aravind and Others2 are reiterated in the case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd3. Therefore, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, the interse negligence amongst these respondent-tort feasors would be 50% each. 14. The respondent No.3 being insurer of respondent No.1, is liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.2. However, this being a case of composite negligence, respondent No.3 if deposits portion of the compensation of respondent No.5, (it being liable jointly and severally), it will be at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.4, the owner of the T.T. Unit. 1 1998 SCC Online Kar 603 2 2003 SCC Online Kar 715 3 (2015) 9 SCC 273 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2507 MFA No. 200705 of 2020 15. Coming to the quantum of the compensation, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) for settlement of the disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe the notional income of Rs.11,750/- for the year 2018. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are held to be acceptable on the ground that they are in general conformity with the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income of the appellant-petitioner is accepted as Rs.11,750/- per month. By adding 40% towards future prospects, the effective multiplicand would come to Rs.16,450/- per month. Accordingly, the loss of dependency on account of death of the deceased is assessed at Rs.16,450/- x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.17,76,600/- by adopting multiplier of ‘18’ and deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2507 MFA No. 200705 of 2020 16. In addition to above, the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.19,500/- towards funeral expenses, a sum or Rs.19,500/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.52,000/- towards loss of love and affection. 17. In all, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,67,600/- as against Rs.13,71,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In the result, the petition deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 18,67,600/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit, instead of Rs.13,71,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. iii) Petitioners are at liberty to recover the compensation amount from any one of the tort- feasors respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and in case the respondent No.3 pays the entire - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2507 MFA No. 200705 of 2020 compensation, it is at liberty to recover 50% of the compensation from respondent No.5. iv) The apportionment, deposit and release of the compensation amount will be as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT: AK