- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4115 MFA No. 119 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.119/2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT LAKSHMIDEVI B C D/O CHKKANNA W/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2. MISS SUCHITHRA B M D/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, 3. MASTER SHARATH B M D/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI B.C W/O LATE MAHADEVAIH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.1 TO 3 R/AT BYLAHALLI GOLLRAHATTI MYASANDRA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK, D KALKERE POST TUMKUR DISTRICT-57 221 4. SMT PARVATHAMMA W/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4115 MFA No. 119 of 2024 5. MR. ERAIAH, S/O LATE HUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.4 AND 5 R/AT SONDENAHALLI MAJURE NARASIHALLI, GODEKERE POST SHETTIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 214 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RIYAZ KHAN S/O BHASHIR KHAN MAJOR (AGE OF R-1 NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS) R/AT BHERYA HOSA AGRAHARA HOBLI, K R NAGAR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 608. 2. THE MANAGER THE HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HM GENEVA HOUSE, UNIT NO.14, 108, 109, 110 AND 111, 1ST FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD:09.08.2024 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.24.11.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.4034/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4115 MFA No. 119 of 2024 BENGALURU, (SCCH-7), 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 MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 24.11.2023 passed in MVC NO.4034/2022 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge, Court Of Small Causes, Member, Bengaluru, for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.2. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. One Mahadevaiah S/o Eeraiah @ Iraiah @ Erayya, met with an accident on 26.05.2022 and died subsequently. His wife, children and parents filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4115 MFA No. 119 of 2024 Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.33,54,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till realization. The Tribunal considered the contributory negligence on the part of Mahadevaiah as 20% and that of the driver of the lorry as 80%. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence parking of the lorry without any indicator or signal to the road user and he was riding the motor cycle on correct direction and there is no negligence on his part and the entire negligence is on the lorry driver. The amount granted under other heads is meager. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation. 5. The manner of accident shows while Mahadevaiah deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-EK-4403 proceeding on SH64 between Bochanahalli – Byallahalli village road, Bochanahalli Village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District at that time the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4115 MFA No. 119 of 2024 driver of Lorry bearing registration No.KA-14-2103 had parked the lorry in the middle of the road and not put any indicator. As such, the motorcyclist dashed the lorry from behind. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon a citation reported in Civil Appeal Nos.10648/2024 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s).10648/2024 in which it was held as follows. “40. xxx The accident took place on a highway where the permissible speed limits are fairly high. In such a situation, it would be imprudent to hold that the driver of a vehicle, travelling through the highway in the dead of the night in pitch dark conditions, would be able to make out a stationary vehicle lying in the middle of the road within a reasonable distance so as to apply the brakes and avoid the collision. The situation would be compounded by the headlights of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction and make the viewing of the stationary vehicle even more difficult. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below that the driver of the car could have averted the accident by applying the brakes and hence, he was equally negligent and contributed to the accident on the application of principle of last opportunity is ex-facie perverse and cannot be sustained.” 6. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Ex.P4 and argued that it was a straight road and there are - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4115 MFA No. 119 of 2024 reflectors on the sides of the road, therefore, if Mahadevaiah was cautious in driving the vehicle, he ought to have noticed the parked lorry, but he failed to do so. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly apportioned his contributory negligence as 20% and it needs no interference. As per the Section 15 of the Rules of Road Regulation, 1989, which reads as under “15. Parking of the vehicle.-(l) Every driver of a motor vehicle parking on anyroad shall park in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger or obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users and. the manner of parking is indicated by any sign board or markings on the road side, he shall park his vehicle in such manner. (2) A driver of a motor vehicle shall not park his vehicle:- (i) at or near a road crossing, a bend, top of a hill or a humpbacked bridge; (ii) on a foot-path; (iii) near a traffic light or pedestrian crossing; (iv) in a main road or one carrying fast traffic; (v) opposite another parked vehicle or as obstruction to other vehicle; (vi) alongside another parked vehicle; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4115 MFA No. 119 of 2024 (vii) on roads or at places or roads where there is a continuous white line with or without a broken line; (viii) near a bus stop, school or hospital entrance or blocking a traffic sign or entrance to a premises or a fire hydrant; (ix) on the wrong side of the road; (x) where parking is prohibited; (xi) away from the edge of the footpath” Hence, parking of the lorry in the middle of the road itself is not permissible. The accident occurred at about 10.30 pm.,, but the lorry was parked on the National Highway without any precautions or indications. Therefore, it cannot be said that the motorcyclist ought to have been vigilant while driving on the National Highway during night times. The Tribunal erred in fixing 20% of contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist and it is set aside. 7. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the lorry driver. Therefore, the Insurance Company of the lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-14-24103 is alone liable to pay the entire compensation. Further, though it was stated that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4115 MFA No. 119 of 2024 Mahadevaiah was doing agriculture and earning Rs.25,000/-, the claimants have not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2022, Tribunal has rightly considered his notional income as Rs.15,500/-. He was aged 35 years and the multiplier taken is ‘16’. Hence, he is entitled for 40% towards future prospects and 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses. The loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,500 + 25% X 12 X 16 – ¼ = Rs.31,24,800/-. As, the accident occurred in 2022, first petitioner is entitled for Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium. Petitioners NoS.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.44,000/- by each of them towards parental consortium and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are entitled for fililial consortium of Rs.44,000/- by each of them. Apart from that, they are also entitled for Rs.36,000/- towards conventional heads as as per the citation in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4115 MFA No. 119 of 2024 8. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.33,54,800/- to Rs. 33,80,800/- 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 24.11.2023 passed in MVC No.4034/2022 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge, Court Of Small Causes, Member, Bengaluru, is modified. Sl. Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Towards loss of dependency 31,24,800 2 Towards loss of consortium (8 claimants) 2,20,000 3 Conventional heads 36,000 Total 33,80,800 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4115 MFA No. 119 of 2024 iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 33,80,800/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.33,54,800/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.26,000/- with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order v. On such deposit, petitioner No.1/the wife of the deceased alone is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88