- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36041 MFA No. 2574 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2574 OF 2020(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. RAJANNA H C S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. MANGALAGOWRAMMA W/O RAJANNA H C, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.25, KASHYAPA NILAYA, 4TH MAIN ROAD, CHIKKASANDRA, T DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-57. AS PER AADHAR CARD ADDRESS, R/AT 7TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD, GOKULA BADAVANE, KYATASANDRA POST, TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO 22-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEX, MISSION ROAD, LALBAGH ROAD, BANGALORE-27 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36041 MFA No. 2574 of 2020 2. PROPRIETOR OF MD ENTERPRISES FLOT NO 154, KIADB INDL. AREA, ANTHARASANAHALLI, TUMKUR TALUK & DIST …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. H.S. SHAFIULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.27.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.2975/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRL. MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-1), 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 MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the compensation, are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. It is not in dispute that, as a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 14.05.2018, Sri Jathin R., a 21 year old died. 3. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.1-Insurance Company. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36041 MFA No. 2574 of 2020 4. The Tribunal, on assessment of the 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 Jathin R. The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to award the following sums as compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 15,12,000 2. Loss of Estate 15,000 3. Funeral and ritual expenses 15,000 4. Filial consortium (40,000 x 2) 80,000 5. Expenses incurred for treatment of deceased prior to accident 2,72,499 Total 18,94,499 Less: 40% towards contributory negligence of the deceased 7,57,699.60 Compensation amount to which the petitioners are entitled to 11,36,699.40 rounded off to 11,37,000 5. It is the primary contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has erred while fixing the negligence on the part of deceased at 40%. According to him, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36041 MFA No. 2574 of 2020 as per Ex.P4-sketch, the driver of the offending vehicle-truck suddenly took U-turn in a non permitted junction, as such, the accident occurred. The sketch further depicts that the deceased was riding motorcycle on the right direction in a National Highway one way road. Further, the Insurance Company has also failed to examine the driver of the offending vehicle. The jurisdictional Police also laid charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. He further contended that the Tribunal has also erred in considering the age, avocation and income and awarded meager compensation, which requires interference by this Court. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, rightly attributed 40% negligence on the part of deceased. According to him, the accident had caused in a permitted U-turn. In the said U-turn, it is the duty of the deceased to ride his motorcycle in a care and cautious manner, since due to the rash and negligence riding of the deceased, he failed to control the vehicle while truck was taking U-turn in a permitted place and he dashed the truck. In such - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36041 MFA No. 2574 of 2020 circumstance, he equally contributed the negligence to the occurrence of the accident. As such, the Tribunal was justified in attributed the negligence on the deceased. He further contended that the Tribunal upon examination of age and avocation of the deceased so also considering the other aspects of the matter, awarded just compensation, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and other 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. The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence placed before it, held that the deceased also contributed 40% negligence for the occurrence of the accident. On careful examination of Ex.P4-sketch, the accident had caused in a National Highway one way road while both the vehicles were traveling from Tumkur towards Bengaluru. The spot of accident was junction and U-turn was permitted in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36041 MFA No. 2574 of 2020 said junction. The offending vehicle proceeded from left side of the road and suddenly took U-turn, at the same time, the deceased was proceeding on the same direction, dashed the truck. While taking U-turn, it is bounded duty of the driver of offending vehicle to view the road carefully and thereafter to take U-turn slowly. By perusal of sketch, it could be easily presumed that the driver of offending vehicle suddenly took U- turn, as such, the accident caused. No doubt, deceased also not took much care and must have rode his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and he also contributed negligence for the accident, however, the same could not be 40%, as assessed by the Tribunal. 9. Nevertheless, the Insurance Company has not examined the driver of the offending vehicle in order to substantiate the claim of the Insurance Company that the deceased equally contributed the negligence. Admittedly, FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and subsequently the Police laid charge sheet against him. The said charge sheet was also not challenged by the Insurance Company. In such circumstance, I am of the considered view that the deceased contributed 20% negligence for the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36041 MFA No. 2574 of 2020 occurrence of the accident. As such, the said finding of the Tribunal in respect of contributory negligence is modified to 20% in respect of deceased and 80% in respect of the driver of the offending vehicle. 10. As far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, in order to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.10,000/-. 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/- . 11. Since the deceased was aged about 21 years, appropriate multiplier would be '18' and 40% future prospects requires to be added and as he was a bachelor, 50% requires to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.18,90,000/- (12,500 + 40% - 50% X 12 X 18) towards 'loss of dependency' as against Rs.15,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36041 MFA No. 2574 of 2020 12. The sum of Rs.2,72,499/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'medical expenses', being based on documentary evidence, is affirmed 13. The claimants, being the parents of the deceased, they would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” i.e., in all Rs.96,800/- (48,400 x 2) 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: 15. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,36,479/- as against Rs.11,37,000/- Sl. No. Compensation under different Heads (Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 18,90,000 2. Medical expenses 2,72,499 3. Loss of consortium 96,800 4. Conventional heads 36,300 (-) 20% towards contributory negligence of the deceased 4,59,120 Total 18,36,479 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36041 MFA No. 2574 of 2020 awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 16. Respondent No.1-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 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 HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3