- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306632022 NC: 2026:KHC:38827 MFA No. 4879 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2657 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4879 OF 2022(MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2657 OF 2022(MV-D) IN MFA No. 4879/2022 BETWEEN: 1. ONKARAMMA W/O NAGARAJU, NOW AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A SOMANAHALLI, 2. YATEESH S N S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 3. RAMYA S N D/O NAGARAJU, NOW AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE, GANDAL (POST), HULIYAR HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAGHU R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M.S GEN. INS. CO. LTD., UNIT NO.4, NINTH FLOOR LEVEL, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306632022 NC: 2026:KHC:38827 MFA No. 4879 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2657 of 2022 GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 39TH "C" CROSS, RAJAJINAGARA, BANGALORE-560 010. 2. RAJANNA Y S/O YALLABOVI, NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A SOMANAHALLI VENKATABOVI, GANADALU POST, C.N.HALLI TALUK-572 214. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.17.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.63/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, XIX MACT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 2657/2022 BETWEEN: THE LEGAL MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD NO.1/2, GOLDEN HEIGTHS 6TH FLOOR, 59TH C CROSS 4TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 038 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ONKARAMMA W/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306632022 NC: 2026:KHC:38827 MFA No. 4879 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2657 of 2022 2. YATEESH S N S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 3. RAMYA S N D/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE GANDAL POST, HULIYAR HOBLI CN HALLY TQ, TUMKUR 4. RAJANNA Y S/O YALLABOVI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/A SOMANAHALLI VENKATABOVI GANADALU POST C N HALLI TALUK ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHU R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.17.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.63/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, XIX MACT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.19,74,900/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ENTIRE REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306632022 NC: 2026:KHC:38827 MFA No. 4879 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2657 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.63/2020 dated 17.11.2021 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, XIX MACT at Chikkanayakanahalli (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded total compensation of Rs.19,74,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the claimants. 2. The brief facts of the case are, on 08.09.2018 at about 07:30 p.m., when the deceased in this case i.e., Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Naik while proceeding along with his brother at the left side of the road at Boothappana Gudi, at that time, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-44- W-2388 rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Nagaraju. As a result, the Nagaraju fell down and sustained head injuries and thereafter, he was shifted to Primary Health Centre, Huliyar and to Government Hospital, Chikkanayakanahalli and there to District Hospital, Tumkur. While taking him to Bangalore, he succumbed to the injuries. Later, a claim petition was filed by the legal - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306632022 NC: 2026:KHC:38827 MFA No. 4879 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2657 of 2022 representatives of the deceased, claiming compensation before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal, upon assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation as stated supra. The said award is challenged by the claimants in MFA No.4879/2022 and the Insurance Company in MFA No.2657/2022. 4. Heard learned counsel Sri Raghu R. for the claimants and learned counsel Sri Pradeep B., for the Insurance Company in both the appeals. 5. The primary contention of learned counsel for the claimants is that the Tribunal has erred while considering the income of the deceased at Rs.13,250/- instead of Rs.14,000/- as per the chart of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He further contended that the Tribunal also erred in awarding compensation on the head of consortium and loss of estate. Accordingly, he prays to allow his appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306632022 NC: 2026:KHC:38827 MFA No. 4879 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2657 of 2022 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal erred in partly allowing the claim petition by saddling entire negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle. According to him, the deceased equally contributed the negligence by walking on the road. By placing reliance on Ex.P13-charge sheet he submits that the contents of accusation in column No.17 reveals that the deceased also equally contributed negligence for the accident. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company by saddling equal negligence on the part of the deceased. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and award so also 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 primary contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the deceased equally contributed negligence to the accident. To substantiate - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306632022 NC: 2026:KHC:38827 MFA No. 4879 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2657 of 2022 the said aspect, the Insurance Company has not placed any documentary evidence like rough sketch or spot mahazar. Admittedly, in the charge sheet filed against the rider of the motorcycle, it is stated that due to the negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, the accident caused. Moreover, the said charge sheet has not been challenged by the Insurance Company. In such circumstances, without any contrary evidence placed by the Insurance Company, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 and the charge sheet. Hence, I am of the considered view that the contention raised by the Insurance Company that the deceased equally contributed the negligence for the accident cannot be accepted. 9. In order to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the deceased, notionally at Rs.13,250/-. 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 2019, would be Rs.14,000/-. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306632022 NC: 2026:KHC:38827 MFA No. 4879 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2657 of 2022 10. As the deceased was aged 45 years, a multiplier of '14' would have to be applied and as he was self-employed, 25% requires to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects and 2/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.19,60,000/- (14,000 + 25% X 12 X 14 X 2/3) towards “loss of dependency”. 11. The claimants, being the wife and children of the deceased, they would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” i.e., in all Rs.1,45,200/- (48,400 x 3) and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the “conventional heads”. 12. Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency 19,60,000 2. Towards loss of consortium 1,45,200 3. Towards loss of estate 36,300 Total 21,41,500 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010306632022 NC: 2026:KHC:38827 MFA No. 4879 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2657 of 2022 13. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.21,41,500/- as against Rs.19,74,900/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 14. 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. 15. The apportionment of compensation amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9