- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073372020 NC: 2026:KHC:39732 MFA No. 1863 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1863 OF 2020(MV-D) BETWEEN: MANJULA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O KEELARA VILLAGE, MANDYA TQ & DIST-571 405 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHESHA S/O SANJEEVA SHETTY MAJOR, R/O NO.1518, CHAMALAPURA STREET, NANJANAGUD TOWN MYSORE DIST-571 301 2. JAYAJMA C.K W/O LATE SIDDAIAH MAJOR, R/AT KUDURAGUNDI VILLAGE, GEJJALAGERE POST, MADDUR TQ MANDYA DISTRICT-571 408 3. THE MANAGER (LEGAL) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS CO LTD NO.846, NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, ABOVE KRISHNA BAKERY AKSHAYA BHANDAR, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSORE-570 019 4. MADEGOWDA S/O SIDDEGOWDA Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073372020 NC: 2026:KHC:39732 MFA No. 1863 of 2020 MAJOR, R/AT NO.196, HEMMIGE VILLAGE, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 408 5. THE MANAGER (LEGAL) IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO.LTD., NO.846, NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, ABOVE KRISHNA BAKERY AKSHAYA BHANDAR, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSORE-570 019 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R5 VIDE ORDER DATED 22/09/2022 NOTICE TO R2 AND R4 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED 19/08/2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1388/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA, 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 The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.7,56,400/- awarded in MVC No.1388/2017 dated 01.10.2019, is in appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are, on 09.12.2016 at about 08:45 a.m., Shivanna (deceased in this case) was - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073372020 NC: 2026:KHC:39732 MFA No. 1863 of 2020 travelling in the Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-09/5405 as a cleaner from Mandya towards Maddur, which was owned by respondent No.1. The said Maxi Cab was driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner and while overtaking the Tractor-Trailer bearing registration No.KA-42-T-2858 and KA- 42-T-2859 near petrol bunk between Mallainadoddi, Hanakere Village, Mysore-Bangalore Road, he dashed on the right back side of the Trailer. As a result, Shivanna sustained injuries and immediately he was shifted to MIMS, Mandya for treatment, however, he succumbed to the injuries. As such, the wife of deceased-Shivanna filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for his accidental death. 3. The Tribunal, upon assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation as stated supra and directed respondent No.1-owner of Maxi Cab to pay 50% compensation since the Maxi Cab was not covered with the insurance policy and further directed respondent No.5-Insurance Company to pay 50% of the compensation. The said judgment is challenged by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073372020 NC: 2026:KHC:39732 MFA No. 1863 of 2020 4. Heard learned counsel Sri Sreenivasan M.Y. for the appellant and learned counsel Sri B. Pradeep for respondent Nos.3 and 5. 5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal has erred in granting meager compensation without appreciating the evidence on record in respect of avocation, age and income of the deceased so also the other aspects. He also contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation on the heads of loss of consortium and loss of estate. Apart from that, he also contended that the Tribunal has also erred in saddling 50% negligence on the driver of Maxi Cab, since the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the driver of Tractor-Trailer. With these submissions he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and 5-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal is justified in attributing 50% contributory negligence on drivers of both the vehicles, since the jurisdictional Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the drivers of both the vehicles. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073372020 NC: 2026:KHC:39732 MFA No. 1863 of 2020 He also contended that the Tribunal is justified in awarding just compensation. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-owner of Maxi Cab contended that the Tribunal has erred in attributing 50% negligence on the part of the driver of Maxi Cab. According to him, on perusal of Ex.P8-charge sheet and Ex.P4-sketch, the same revealed that the driver of Tractor-Trailer suddenly turned the Tractor-Trailer to the right side of the road, as a result, the accident caused. In such circumstances, the accident caused solely due to the negligence of the driver of Tractor- Trailer. He also supported the contention of learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5-Insurance companies and submits that the Tribunal is justified in awarding just compensation. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal by setting-aside the negligence saddled against him. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and award also the other documents made available before this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073372020 NC: 2026:KHC:39732 MFA No. 1863 of 2020 9. As could be gathered from records, more particularly, Ex.P4-sketch and Ex.P8-charge sheet reveal that the accident was caused on Mysore-Bangalore highway, which consists centre median. The driver of the Tractor-Trailer was travelling from Mandya towards Bengaluru in an eastern side and the driver of the Maxi-Cab was also driving the said vehicle on the same direction. When they reached a place called Mallainadoddi, Hanakere, the driver of the Maxi Cab made an attempt to overtake the Tractor-Trailer, at that time, the driver of the Tractor-Trailer suddenly took the vehicle to the right side without any indicator, as such the accident caused. The said aspect further clarifies in the Ex.P1-FIR. Though the driver of Maxi Cab was arrayed as accused No.2 in the charge sheet, on perusal of the same, it clearly reveals that the driver of the Tractor-Trailer contributed major negligence to the accident. On perusal of over all evidence, I am of the considered view that the negligence contributed by the driver of the Maxi Cab has to be assessed at 25% instead of 50%, whereas, the driver of the Tractor-Trailer had contributed 75% negligence to the accident instead of 50%. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal is modified. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073372020 NC: 2026:KHC:39732 MFA No. 1863 of 2020 10. The Tribunal, upon perusal of evidence and documents, held that the Maxi Cab in which the deceased was travelling was not covered with valid insurance policy, as such, the owner is liable to pay the compensation. Upon perusal of the entire materials on record, since the claimant or respondent No.1 failed to produce any reliable documents to substantiate that the Maxi Cab was covered with insurance policy, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal is justified in holding that respondent No.1-owner is liable to pay the compensation. However, since the negligence is modified to the extent of 25%, the owner of the Maxi Cab is liable to pay only 25% of the compensation amount to the claimant and the remaining 75% of the compensation has to be paid by respondent No.5- Insurance Company. 11. As far as the compensation is concerned, in order to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs.8,000/-. Since there is no credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073372020 NC: 2026:KHC:39732 MFA No. 1863 of 2020 Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2016, would be Rs.9,500/-. 12. As the deceased was aged 50 years, a multiplier of '13' would have to be applied and 10% requires to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects and 1/2 has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.8,15,100/- (9,500 + 10% X 12 X 13 X 1/2) towards “loss of dependency”. 13. The claimant, being the wife of deceased, she is entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” and she is entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the “conventional heads”. 14. Thus, the claimant, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency 8,15,100 2. Towards loss of consortium 48,400 3. Towards loss of estate 36,300 Total 8,99,800 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010073372020 NC: 2026:KHC:39732 MFA No. 1863 of 2020 15. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,99,800/- as against Rs.7,56,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 16. Respondent No.1-owner of Maxi Cab is directed to deposit 25% of the compensation and respondent No.5- Insurance Company is directed to deposit remaining 75% of the compensation to the claimant 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 amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3