- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34564 MFA No. 4039 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4039 OF 2021(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ERAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA AGED 51 YEARS 2. THIMMAPPA S/O HULIGEPPA AGED 61 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT GUNJAHALLI VILLAGE GILLEUGUR, RAICHUR-584 140 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SRIDHAR D.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAFISIKANDAR S/O ABDUL HAMED SIKANDAR MAJOR NO 28, VOC STREET MEENTACHIPET 1 PUDUCHERY, PONDICHERRY-605 011 2. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURACE CO.LTD REP BY ITS MANAGER 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34564 MFA No. 4039 of 2021 NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 027 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5826/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH- 13), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appeal is filed by the legal heirs of deceased Parasappa @ Parashuram seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC.No.5826/2018 vide judgment and award dated 15.04.2021. 2. It is not in dispute that as a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 30.08.2018, Parasappa @ Parashuram, a 17 year old died. 3. It is not in dispute that the Insurer is liable to pay the compensation as the offending vehicle was insured. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34564 MFA No. 4039 of 2021 4. The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence adduced before it, has come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident which has resulted in the death of Parasappa, however, attributed 25% contributory negligence on the deceased. The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to award the following sums as compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 13,60,800 2. Loss of Filial Consortium (Rs 40,000/- each to petitioner No.1 & 2) 80,000 3. Loss of estate 20,000 4. Funeral expenses 15,000 Total 14,75,800 After deduction of 25% 11,06,850 5. Learned counsel for the claimants apart from urging several contentions, would primarily contend that the Tribunal has grossly erred in attributing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 25%. He would contend Ex.P3 – spot sketch clearly depicts that the offending bus suddenly came on the extreme right side of the road from the extreme left side of the road and dashed against the deceased pedestrian. He - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34564 MFA No. 4039 of 2021 would also contend that investigation papers including chargesheet also reveal that the accident had caused solely due to the negligence of the offending private bus. He would also contend that from the place of accident in a short distance there was zebra crossing i.e., in 10 feet distance, as such, the driver of the heavy vehicle like bus ought to have been more cautious. Accordingly, it cannot be construed that the deceased had contributed his negligence for occurrence of the accident and thus, attribution of 25% negligence on the deceased by the Tribunal is untenable. He would further contend that compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads is meager and the same requires to be enhanced. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer would vehemently contend that the Tribunal was right and justified in attributing 25% contributory negligence on the deceased – pedestrian, who crossed the National Highway where there was no zebra crossing. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA.No.2380/2016 disposed of on 30.01.2020 and in MFA.No.132/2019 disposed of on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34564 MFA No. 4039 of 2021 23.06.2026, learned counsel would contend that in the said cases, this Court held that if a person crosses the road, where there was no zebra crossing and accident occurs, the negligence of the victim should be taken. He would also contend that Ex.P3 – sketch reveals that there is centre median in the road and that the accident had caused in the Highway. As such, the Tribunal has rightly attributed negligence on the deceased. He would further contend that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amount under all the heads and the same requires to be reduced. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. 8. As could be seen from Ex.P3 – sketch, the accident had caused in the National Highway, where there is centre median and that the offending bus which was moving towards Bengaluru in the Highway came from extreme left side to the extreme right side suddenly and dashed against the pedestrian who had crossed 3 feet distance from centre median. However, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34564 MFA No. 4039 of 2021 as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that 10 feet away from the place of accident, there was zebra crossing, it could be fairly presumed that deceased pedestrian could have entered the road to cross the road and at that time, the offending bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the pedestrian. As such, I am of the view that attribution of 25% negligence on the deceased in the instant case cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the contributory negligence of the deceased is assessed at 10%. 9. As regards compensation, in order to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.9,000/-. 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 2018, would be Rs.12,500/-. 10. Since the deceased was aged below 40 years, 40 % requires to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, which would result in the income to be Rs.17,500/-. Since the deceased was bachelor, 50% requires to be deducted - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34564 MFA No. 4039 of 2021 towards personal expenses, which makes his monthly income to be Rs.8,750/-. The income of the deceased for the purposes of determining the loss of dependency would thus be Rs.8,750/- 11. As the deceased was aged 17 years, a multiplier of '18' would have to be applied. 12. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,90,000/- (Rs.8,750 x 12 x 18) towards “loss of dependency”. 13. The claimants, being the parents of the deceased, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” i.e., in all Rs.96,800/- 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 18,90,000 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34564 MFA No. 4039 of 2021 2. Loss of Consortium 96,800 3. Conventional head 36,300 4. Less contributory negligence at 10% 2,02,310 Total 18,20,790 15. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled for compensation of Rs.18,20,790/- as against Rs.11,06,850/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 16. The Insurer 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 of compensation amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43