- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34985 MFA No. 51 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. FANIRAJA JAIN (FATHER OF THE DECEASED) AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O CHANDRARAJA, 2. VASANTHI (MOTHER OF DECEASED) AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O FANIRAJA JAIN, 3. PRASAD JAIN (BROTHER OF DECEASED) AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O FANIRAJA HAIN, 4. PAVITHRA (UNMARRIED SISTER OF DECEASED) AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O FANIRAJA JAIN, ALL ARE R/AT BHANDARI BETTU, RENJALA POST, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DIST-574 114. 5. PRAJNA (MARRIED SISTER OF DECEASED) AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O FANIRAJA JAIN, W/O CHANDRU T Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34985 MFA No. 51 of 2022 R/AT 27TH A MAIN ROAD, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 041. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VENKARAMANA PRASAD V.K AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O V.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, R/AT #5-198/5A, VASUNDHARA, KRISHNAGIRI, HIRIYANGADI KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104. 2. ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INS. CO. LTD C-22, 2ND FLOOR, MAXIMAS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, MANGALORE-575 006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1168/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34985 MFA No. 51 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07.04.2021 passed in MVC.No.1168/2019 by the Tribunal, awarding total compensation of Rs.22,80,690/- for the accidental death of Pramod and attributing 50% contributory negligence on the deceased, the claimants are before this Court in this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 29.06.2019 at about 7.45 a.m., deceased Pramod was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA20 EK 1575 and while moving towards Miyaru, when he reached Power Point Store at Miyaru Village, a car bearing registration No.KA20 Z 6483 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Pramod. As a result of which, Pramod sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to KMC Hospital, Manipal, where he took treatment till 05.07.2019 and ultimately, succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the claimants, being his legal heirs, filed a claim petition. 3. The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence adduced before it, has come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34985 MFA No. 51 of 2022 vehicle as well as the deceased - rider of the motorcycle were equally responsible for the accident which has resulted in the death of Pramod. The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to award the following sums as compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 21,42,000 2. Loss of Consortium 88,000 3. Funeral expenses & Transportation charges 16,500 4. Medical expenses 7,690 5. Loss of estate 16,500 6. Incidental expenses 10,000 Total 22,80,690 4. Aggrieved by which, the claimants are before this Court in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal has grossly erred in attributing contributory negligence on the deceased. According to him, the accident had occurred in the middle of the 30 feet width road and when the deceased - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34985 MFA No. 51 of 2022 came on the right side of the road, the offending car which was coming from the opposite side also came on the right side of the road and dashed against the motorcycle. By placing reliance on Ex.R1 and the evidence of PW.1, he would contend that the manner in which accident had occurred has been narrated by PW.1 and even as per Ex.R1 - sketch, it is clear that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely responsible for the accident, as such, the Tribunal was not justified in attributing 50% contributory negligence on the deceased. Accordingly, attribution of negligence on the deceased requires to be set aside. He would further contend that the amount awarded under different heads is meager and the same requires to be enhanced. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the insurer would contend as per the evidence of RW.1 and Ex.R1 - sketch, the Tribunal was justified in attributing contributory negligence at 50% on the deceased. The driver of the offending vehicle was examined as R.W.1, who has categorically deposed in his evidence that the accident had caused in the middle of the road and due to the negligent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34985 MFA No. 51 of 2022 riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. He would further contend that the sums awarded under all the heads are exorbitant and the same requires to be reduced. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The death of Pramod due to the accident and the coverage of insurance policy of the offending vehicle are not in dispute. 9. As regards attribution of contributory negligence on the deceased, a careful examination of Ex.R1 - spot sketch, would reveal that the deceased - rider of the motorcycle came from Bajagoli to move towards Karkala, whereas the driver of the offending car was traveling from Karkala side towards Bajagoli in a 30 feet width road and that the accident had occurred in the middle of the road. However, R.W.1 - driver of the offending vehicle , in his cross-examination, has admitted that the accident had not taken place in the middle of the road. As - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34985 MFA No. 51 of 2022 such, it could be fairly presumed that the driver of the car who is duty bound to drive his car with all care and caution ought to have traveled in the left side of the road, however, he traveled in the middle of the road endangering the human life on the other side of the road. No doubt, even the deceased - rider of the motorcycle had also contributed to the accident since the accident had taken place as he had also traveled to the right side of the road i.e., towards middle of the 30 feet width road, instead of riding on the left side of the road, however, the same could not be assessed at 50%. On perusal of rough sketch and evidence of RW.1, I am of the considered view that the deceased could have contributed 20% negligence to the occurrence of the accident. Accordingly, the contributory negligence is attributed on the deceased - rider of the motorcycle at 20%. 10. As regards the award of compensation by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- based on the evidence and based on his age, 40% future prospects has been added and 50% has been deducted towards personal expenses as deceased was a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34985 MFA No. 51 of 2022 bachelor. The Tribunal has also awarded just and fair compensation towards consortium and conventional heads. As such, the same does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the claimants would be held entitled to Rs.18,24,552/- as against Rs.11,40,345/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. instead of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. 11. The insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 12. The apportionment of compensation shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51