- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15110 MFA No. 5414 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5414 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VINOD KUMAR S/O. RAM NIDHA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SMT. MIRA SINGH, W/O. VINOD KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MARUTHI NAGAR, DAFI POST, VARANASI, UTTAR PRADESH - 221 011. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADVOCATE; R1 SERVED) AND: 1. KKC TRANSPORTS PVT LTD OFFICE AT NO.22/4, COIMBATORE MAIN ROAD, PERUNDURAJ ERODO, TAMIL NADU - 638 052. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15110 MFA No. 5414 of 2024 (RC OWNER OF THE GOODS CARRIER BARING REG. NO.TN-56-M-7756) 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.9, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBER, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. POL. NO.72240331220100000552 (POLICY PERIOD FROM 12-06-2022 TO 11-06-2023) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S V SUDHAKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.01.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO. 224/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), 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 MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15110 MFA No. 5414 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 08.01.2024 passed in MVC No.224/2023, by the I Additional Small Cause Judge and ACMM & Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Bengaluru for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellants and respondent No.2. 3. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience. 4. Subham Singh, S/o Vinod Kumar met with an accident and died subsequently. His parents filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-. Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs14,97,170/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal and mainly contented that the tribunal assessed contributory - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15110 MFA No. 5414 of 2024 negligence of 40% on Subham Singh and it is bad in law. The charge sheet is filed against both the drivers. Accident occurred on two wheeler path and the driver of the lorry parked his lorry on two wheeler path without any indicators. There is no evidence to show that he has taken precautionary measures to park his lorry on the road. Subham Singh was a Mechanical Engineer, doing his internship and earning Rs.35,000/- per month. They filed his bonafide certificate, marks card and loan statement. The tribunal granted meager amounts under other heads interest is to be granted at the rate of 12%. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that as the petitioners failed to prove income of the Subham Singh, the Tribunal has rightly considered the notional income and it needs to be confirmed. Considering the sketch and the other documents on record, Tribunal has rightly assessed 40% on contributory negligence on part of the deceased and it needs no interference. Admittedly Subham Singh was studying third year B.Tec at the time - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15110 MFA No. 5414 of 2024 of the accident. Petitioners filed a relevant documents regarding his education and they contended that he was earning Rs.35,000/- through internships. But they have not filed any income proof. They relied upon citation reported in 2020 SCC Online Kar 2950 in MFA No.5654/2016 in which the Supreme Court considered the income of a second year BE student aged 20 years as Rs.30,000/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/-. 6. In this case, Subham Singh completed his BE Electronics Communication and Engineering. As per Exhibit P-18 and he paid partial educational loan to the Bank. Considering the qualification of the petitioner, his age and in the absence of any relevant documents to prove his income, this Court finds it reasonable to take the income as Rs.25,000/- per month and he was aged 23 years and the multiplier is '18'. He is entitled for 40% towards future prospects and as he was a bachelor 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, 'loss of dependency' comes to Rs.37,80,000/-(25,000 + 40% x 12 x 18 - 50%). - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15110 MFA No. 5414 of 2024 7. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled for an amount of Rs.44,000/- each of them thus Rs.88,000/- towards filial consortium and they are also entitled for Rs.33,000/- under the convention Heads. The Tribunal has granted Rs.30,682/- towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed. So total compensation comes to Rs.39,31,682/-. 8. Hence, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.24,95,282/- to Rs.39,31,682/-. 9. It is contented that the tribunal fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the Subham Singh as 40% and that of the driver of Goods Carrier as 60%. The manner of accident shows while Subham Singh was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No. UP- 80-DQ-6820 from Magadi to Madavara direction and reached near Madavara Nice Road, Toll, Goods Carrier bearing registration No.TN-56-M-7756 was parked without any indicator or signals and without putting any barricades. As such Subham Singh dashed the Goods - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15110 MFA No. 5414 of 2024 Carrier. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that Goods Carrier was negligently parked on the side of the road without any indicators. There is no contributory negligence on his part. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent contended that accident occurred at about 01.45 p.m. that is in the broad daylight and it was parked on the extreme left side of the road as per Exhibit P-7 Sketch but still Subham Singh dashed the vehicle and thus the tribunal has rightly considered 40% negligence on his part. 10. It is not the case of the respondents that the parked Goods Carrier has taken all the precautionary measures. As per Section 15 of the Rules of Road Regulation, 1989, which reads as follows:- "15. Parking of the vehicle-(1) Every driver of a motor vehicle parking on any raod shall park in such a way that it does not cause is not likely to cause danger or obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users and the manner of parking is indicated by any sign board or markings on the road side, he shall park his vehicle in such manner. (2) A driver of a motor vehicle shall not park his vehicle:- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15110 MFA No. 5414 of 2024 i. at or near a road crossing, a bend, top of a hill or a humpbacked bridge; ii. on a foot-path; iii. near a traffic light or pedestrian crossing; iv. in a main road or one carrying fast traffic; v. opposite another parked vehicle or as obstruction to other vehicle; vi. alongside another parked vehicle; vii. on roads or at places or roads where there is a continuous while line with or without a broken line; viii. near a bus stop, school or hospital entrance or blocking a traffic sign or entrance to a premises or a fire hydrant; ix. on the wrong side of the road; x. where parking is prohibited; xi. away from the edge of the footpath" 11. Goods Carrier is not supposed to park their vehicle on the main road and they have not taken any precautionary measures. The accident occurred at 01.45 p.m. and Subham Singh might have also noticed the parked Goods Carrier from a distance while he was proceeding on a motorcycle. It was admittedly parked on the left side of the road and the width of the road is 40 feet. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take the contributory negligence of Subham Singh as 10% and that of the Goods Carrier is 90%. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15110 MFA No. 5414 of 2024 12. As Insurance Company/respondent No.2 already deposited 60% of the compensation as directed by the Trial Court, they are liable to pay 90% of the compensation of Rs.39,31,682/- with interest. Therefore, Insurance company/respondent No.2 is directed to deposit balance compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order 13. On such deposit, both the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest equally. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64