- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18881-DB MFA No. 6767 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6767 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, DRM HOSPITAL COMPLEX, H.L.K. ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501 REP. BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., P B NO.237, 34/3, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, M M COMPLEX, P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BENNI RAVISH CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHASHIKALA W/O ASHOKA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. VIDHYA D/O ASHOKA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 3. ASHOKA @ ASHOKA S, S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA @ SANNALINGAYYA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18881-DB MFA No. 6767 of 2023 ALL ARE R/AT BIRAVARA VILLAGE, HIREGUNTANURU HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE 4. M/S IVC LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR K.S SINGHAL, S/O SHIDURAM SINGHAL MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REG. NO. MH-14 GU 3689 R/O OFFICE AT 260/261, MATADEEN YADAV BUILDING, KAPSHERA, GURUGRAM ROAD, NEAR KAPASHERA POLICE STATION, NEW DELHI - 110 037. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGAN MOHAN M.T., ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; R4 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 685/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, NO.IV, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 24,18,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18881-DB MFA No. 6767 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri. Ravish Benni, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Jagan Mohan.M.T., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Though respondent No.2 served, she remained unrepresented. 2. This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 04.08.2023 passed in MVC No.685/2022 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-IV, Chitradurga (for short “the Tribunal”). 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of Kiran (deceased) in a road traffic accident that occurred on 14.08.2021 at about 9:45 a.m., involving a luggage auto bearing No.KA-16/C-1570 and a lorry bearing No.MH-14/GU-3689. It is contended that the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the said luggage auto and was also engaged in agriculture, earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Upon service of notice, respondent No.1 therein remained absent. Respondent No.2 appeared and filed a statement of objections, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18881-DB MFA No. 6767 of 2023 denying the averments made in the claim petition and attributing negligence to the deceased in respect of the accident. 3.1 Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. Respondent No.2 got marked copy of insurance policy as Ex.R1. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, Kiran. The Tribunal apportioned the negligence in the ratio of 70:30, attributing 30% negligence to the deceased and 70% to the driver of the lorry. 3.2 The Tribunal, having assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, added 40% towards future prospects and deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. It applied the multiplier of ‘18’, taking the age of the deceased as 21 years at the time of the accident. In all, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,18,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18881-DB MFA No. 6767 of 2023 4. Sri. Ravish Benni, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, submits that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased. It is contended that the vehicle was parked on the extreme left side of the road and that the accident occurred during daytime, when the parked vehicle was clearly visible to the deceased. It is further submitted that, had the deceased exercised due care, the accident could have been avoided. Hence, it is urged that the assessment of negligence by the Tribunal is erroneous and that the entire negligence ought to have been attributed to the deceased. 5. Sri. Jagan Mohan M.T., learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the assessment of negligence by the Tribunal is based on the evidence on record. It is further contended that, had the offending vehicle not been parked in the manner in which it was, the accident would not have occurred. It is submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, it is urged that the finding on negligence, being based on the evidence on record, does not warrant interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18881-DB MFA No. 6767 of 2023 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 7. The occurrence of the accident, the age of the deceased, the applicable multiplier, and the income assessed by the Tribunal are not in dispute. The insurer is in appeal only insofar as it relates to the finding on negligence. It is contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased-Kiran, and therefore, 100% negligence ought to have been attributed to him. 7.1 The Tribunal, while assessing negligence, has referred to Ex.P5—the sketch depicting the scene of the accident. A perusal of Ex.P5 indicates that the accident occurred on the National Highway, and the place of occurrence is within the marked lanes of the National Highway. No doubt, the road is straight and the parked vehicle was visible. However, parking of a vehicle in a non-designated area is in violation of the rule 5 Karnataka Traffic Control Rules, 1979, which reads as under: "5. Parking place for vehicles and animals. (1) No person shall park or cause to be parked any vehicle or animal in any place other than the one specified for parking of such vehicles or animal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18881-DB MFA No. 6767 of 2023 (2) Every local authority in the area under its jurisdiction shall fix the parking places for the use of vehicles and animals in consultation with the Superintendent of Police having jurisdiction over such area. (3) Such parking places shall be fixed beyond the extremities of the highways. (4) All such parking places shall be maintained by the local authority within whose jurisdiction they are situated." 7.2 As per the aforesaid Rules, parking of a vehicle in a place not designated for parking is impermissible. Parking of the vehicle in violation of the said Rules constitutes negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, has rightly assessed the negligence in the ratio of 70:30. We find no infirmity or error in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, which is founded on the evidence on record. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE SMJ/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4