- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21384 MFA No. 1516 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1516 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH NOW AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 2. BINDU S.V, D/O LATE VENKATESH NOW AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, 3. KEERTHANA S.V, D/O LATE VENKATESH NOW AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS 4. MANOJ S.V, S/O LATE VENKATESH NOW AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS 5. HANUMAKKA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR N/G AND MOTHER APPELLANT NO 1 ALL ARE R/A SEERESANDRA BYATHA BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 089. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAGHU R, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21384 MFA No. 1516 of 2024 AND: 1. M/S. VTT TRANSPORT SOLUTIONS NO. 3, 3RD MAIN ROAD MUNESHWARA TEMPLE STREET NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE VENKATEGOWDA LAYOUT, HEBBAL, KEMPAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 024, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE MANAGER TATA AIG GEN. INS. CO. LTD., NO. 69, 3RD FLOOR, J P AND DEVI JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 051. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREKSHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FO R1; SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.1453/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU SCCH-8 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21384 MFA No. 1516 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 18.11.2023 passed in MVC No.1453/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-8), seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, one Venkatesh, met with an accident on 12.12.2021 and died subsequently. His wife, children and mother filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.20,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. The Tribunal held that there was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21384 MFA No. 1516 of 2024 contributory negligence of 20% on the part of Venkatesh/pedestrian and 80% on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, respondent No.2 was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.16,08,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realisation. Being aggrieved by the said order, claimants have preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing 20% contributory negligence on the deceased, as the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the Maxi Cab and there is no negligence on the part of the deceased. An eyewitness examined as PW.2 and he stated that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of driver of the Maxi Cab. The Venkatesh/deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income at Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal has also granted meagre amounts under other heads. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21384 MFA No. 1516 of 2024 4. Though it is stated that Venkatesh was working as a coolie and earning Rs.20,000/-, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2021, his notional income is to be taken at Rs.15,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The deceased was aged 42 years and the relevant multiplier is ‘14’. 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses and the claimants are entitled to an addition of 25% towards future prospects. Accordingly, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.23,62,500/- (15,000 + 25% × 12 × 14 - 1/4th). Petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.44,000/- each towards parental consortium. Petitioner No.5 is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards filial consortium. The petitioners are also entitled to Rs.33,000/- under conventional heads. 5. It is stated that while Venkatesh was crossing the road as a pedestrian in front of a milk dairy, the driver - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21384 MFA No. 1516 of 2024 of the Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-50-A-7610 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result, he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the accident occurred on a curved road, and they examined RW.1 and he stated that Venkatesh suddenly came onto the road, due to which he could not notice the pedestrian and thus there is contributory negligence of Venkatesh. The Tribunal has rightly considered all these aspects and assessed the contributory negligence at 20% and it is to be confirmed. 6. A perusal of the record shows that Exs.P.3 and P.4 are the spot mahazar and sketch. The width of the road is 30 feet and at the place of the accident, the eastern side distance of the road is 5 to 6 feet. PW.2 is an eyewitness to the occurrence and based on his evidence, the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the Maxi Cab. The accident did not occur in the middle of the road and the pedestrian had already crossed about 75% of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21384 MFA No. 1516 of 2024 the road. A perusal of the sketch shows that there is no curve at the place of the accident. The driver of the vehicle ought to have noticed the pedestrian from a reasonable distance and avoided the accident, but failed to do so. Moreover, it is for the insurance company to plead and prove contributory negligence. But they did not taken the plea at the earliest point of time before the Tribunal. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of Venkatesh/deceased is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence and is liable to be set aside. 7. Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21384 MFA No. 1516 of 2024 8. Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.26,15,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 9. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 18.11.2023 passed in MVC No.1453/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-8), is modified. Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Towards loss of dependency 23,62,500/- 2 Towards spousal consortium 44,000/- 3. Towards parental consortium (Rs.44,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 to 4) 1,32,000/- 4. Towards filial consortium 44,000/- 5 Towards conventional heads 33,000/- Total 26,15,500/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21384 MFA No. 1516 of 2024 iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.26,15,500/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.20,10,000/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has already deposited 80% of the compensation. Therefore, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. v. On such deposit, petitioner No.1/wife of the deceased is alone permitted to withdraw the said amount along with interest accrued on the same. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55