- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34249 MFA No. 6555 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6555 OF 2021(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. RENUKAMMA W/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT KEMANAHALLI VILLAGE PINNENAHALLI MAJARE CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 2. YASHODAMMA W/O KUMAR D/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT SIRADADU VILLAGE, KALLEMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 3. ROOPA P.S W/O PRASANNA KUMAR A.S D/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, KAREGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE AREHALLI MAJARE, HAGALAVADI HOBLI GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 4. MEENAKSHI P.S W/O PANCHAKSHRI D/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.34, MTS LAYOUT 13TH CROSS, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34249 MFA No. 6555 of 2021 5. GEETHA K.S W/O GIRISH D/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT MADENAHALLI VILLAGE GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 6. KOMALA P S W/O UJWAL KUMAR D/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT SURENAHALLI VILLAGE C.N DURGA HOBLI KORTAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT ALL APPELLANTS PRESENTLY R/AT 4TH CROSS NEAR VIDYANAGARA MILK DAIRY, VIDYANAGARA, TUMAKURU …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAGHU R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KIRAN C HEGDE S/O CHANDRASHEKAR HEGDE NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.912, MAKKIGADDE KYADGI SIDDAPURA, UTTARA KANNADA -581 355 2. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.,LTD., 1ST FLOOR, SS COMPLEX ABOVE, HARSHA BH ROAD, SHIMOGA-577 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 715/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34249 MFA No. 6555 of 2021 CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.715/2020 dated 12.04.2021 by the VII Addl. District Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Tumakuru, approached this Court for enhancement of compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are, on 20.08.2020 at 11:45 a.m., the deceased was riding his two wheeler - TVS XL 100 bearing No.KA-06/EY-9167 near Nelahal Circle, Bellavi Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk and at that time, the driver of Ford Figo Car bearing registration No.KA-51/Z-9270, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the two wheeler of deceased. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Police registered FIR and subsequently laid charge sheet against the driver of the offending car. Later, claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34249 MFA No. 6555 of 2021 3. The Tribunal, on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, awarded total compensation of Rs.10,20,400/-, however, held that the deceased was also guilty of contributory negligence to the tune of 50%. As such, it is held that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,10,200/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants are before this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel Sri Raghu R., for the appellants- claimants and learned counsel Sri Janardhan Reddy for respondent No.2. 5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the appellants primarily contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred by holding that the deceased had also contributed negligence to the accident to the tune of 50%. By placing reliance on spot sketch-Ex.P4 and charge sheet-Ex.P10, he submits that the charge sheet has been laid against the driver of the offending vehicle and spot sketch-Ex.P4 also depicts that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In such circumstances, the findings of the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence are without appreciating the evidence on record. He also contended that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34249 MFA No. 6555 of 2021 the Tribunal has erred in granting meagre compensation under all the heads. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company by supporting the impugned judgment and award contended that Ex.P4-spot sketch reveals that the deceased rode his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly took U-turn without observing the traffic rules, as such, the accident had occurred. This aspect of the matter had been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal and accordingly, the Tribunal attributed 50% negligence on the part of the deceased. He further contended that mere non-filing of charge sheet against the deceased itself cannot take away the aspect that he had not contributed negligence for occurrence of the accident. He also further contended that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation under all the heads, which requires no interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34249 MFA No. 6555 of 2021 appeals papers and documents made available before this Court. 8. As could be gathered from records, the accident in question and coverage of insurance policy to the offending vehicle are not in dispute. As far as the contribution of negligence of the deceased to the accident is concerned, the Tribunal has opined that at the place of accident, the deceased suddenly took U-turn without following traffic rules, as such, the accident had occurred. However, Ex.P4-spot sketch and the charge sheet materials reveal that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely responsible for the accident. On careful examination of the spot sketch-Ex.P4 and charge sheet materials and the place of accident, it is seen that the accident had occurred in the permitted U-turn and the offending vehicle dashed on the rear portion of the motorcycle. It could further be gathered that the deceased suddenly took U-turn without any signal or following the traffic rules. As such, in my view, though the deceased had not contributed 50% negligence for the accident, due to the evidence available on record, it could be fairly assessed that he has contributed minimum negligence to the tune of 15%. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34249 MFA No. 6555 of 2021 9. In order to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.12,000/-. As there is no credible evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2020, would be Rs.14,500/-. 10. The Tribunal has taken the age of deceased as 59 years taking into consideration the Aadhar card and PAN card of the wife of the deceased, since no material was produced to substantiate the age of the deceased, although post-mortem report discloses the age of deceased as 54 years. In my view, since there is no material whatsoever produced to prove the age of the deceased, it would be appropriate to rely on the post-mortem report, which depicts the age of the deceased as 54 years. Accordingly, the age of the deceased is considered as 54 years. 11. Since the deceased was aged 54 years, 10% requires to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, which would result in the income to be Rs.15,950/-. If 1/3rd is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34249 MFA No. 6555 of 2021 deducted towards personal expenses, his monthly income would be Rs.10,634/-. The income of the deceased for the purposes of determining the loss of dependency would thus be Rs.10,634/-. 12. As the deceased was aged 54 years, a multiplier of '11' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.14,03,688/- (10,634 X 12 X 11) rounded off to Rs.14,03,700/- towards “loss of dependency”. 13. The claimants, being the wife and daughters, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” i.e., in all Rs.2,90,400/- and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the “conventional heads”. 14. Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 14,03,700 2. Loss of Consortium 2,90,400 3. Conventional Heads 36,300 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34249 MFA No. 6555 of 2021 4. Less 15% towards contributory negligence 2,59,560 Total 14,70,840 15. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,70,840/- as against Rs.5,10,200/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 16. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 17. The apportionment shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV,PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47