- 1 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5150/2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. P. LAVANYA, W/O. LATE P. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 2. KUMARI P. SRIVANI, D/O LATE P. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, 3. MASTER P. SRIHARI, S/O LATE P. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, R/BY APPELLANT NO.1/THEIR MOTHER/NEXT FRIENT 4. SMT. CHINNA NAKKALA RAMAKKA, W/O LATE GURRAYYA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A. KOTAGUTTAPPALLI VILLAGE PEDDMANDYAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. NAGAMMA TRANSPORT, ROUTHUSURAMALA VILLAGE, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517 642, R - 2 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. KOPPALA DORABADU. 2. THE MANAGER, THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS, GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 59TH ‘C’ CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH M BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD:11.02.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.02.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.5539/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 06.02.2024 passed in MVC No.5539/2022 on the file of the VIII Addl. Small Causes - 3 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 Judge and MACT (SCCH-5), Bangalore for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 21.08.2022 at about 12.30 am P.Ramesh was driving a car bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-1082 near Empedu Eswaraiah Colony, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Tirupathi District, A.P., a tractor bearing Reg.No.AP-39-UC-9920 and trailer bearing Reg.No.AP-39-UE-4909 parked unmindfully on the middle of the road, without any signals like indicator lights, reflectors etc., inspite of the careful driving, P.Ramesh could not see the parked vehicle, so he dashed against the parked tractor, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Government Hospital Srikalahasthi and during the course of treatment he succumbed to the injuries. Subsequently his wife, children and mother filed claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs.40 lakhs. The - 4 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.18,12,732/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from date of petition till deposit. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimants preferred this appeal and learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that P.Ramesh was a driver and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken his income at the rate of Rs.14,980/- which is on lower side. He was aged 37 years and 50% of the earning is to be taken towards his future prospects. The amount granted under other heads is meager. The Tribunal held that the deceased had contributed 40% negligence to the accident, though the driver of the tractor and trailer parked the vehicle in the middle of the road, without taking any precautionary measures or not giving any indications or signals. Later, the police filed charge sheet against driver of the tractor and trailer, but it was not considered by the Tribunal. As per the documents filed, it goes to show that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor and trailer. PW2 is - 5 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 an eye witness. Insurer of the tractor and trailer has not secured the Investigation Officer, who conducted the investigation and not examined the driver of the tractor and trailer regarding contributory negligence. Further, learned counsel submits that the interest granted is only 6% and it requires to be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that infact, the respondents are residing at Kalahasthi of Andhra Pradesh and accident occurred in that State, but they have filed application before this court wrongly. However, the respondent failed to raise the question of jurisdiction at the earliest point of time before the Tribunal, and thus now he cannot raise the same. 6. Further, learned counsel for appellant submits that the accident occurred on 21.8.2022, when P.Ramesh was driving the car bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-1082 near Empedu Eswaraiah Colony, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Triupathi District, Andhra Pradesh and the tractor bearing Reg.No.AP-39-UC-9920 and the trailer bearing Reg. No.AP-39-UE-4909 parked unmindfully on the middle of - 6 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 the road without any signals, like indicators, lights and reflectors etc., inspite of careful driving, could not see the parked vehicle and he dashed against the same and sustained grievous injuries, immediately he was shifted to the hospital, but succumbed to the injuries. 7. Though respondent No.1/owner of the tractor and trailer appeared before the court but has not filed any written statement. The Insurance Company filed written statement and mainly contended that the driver of the tractor was not holding valid driving license and that they did not issue policy in respect of trailer bearing Reg.No.AP-39-UE-4909 and that the liability is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy. Insured vehicle has no permit or fitness certificate as on the date of accident. Learned counsel for Insurance Company further contended that the petitioners have not furnished sketch map prepared at the time of spot mahazar. Ex.P12 is the Authorization Letter. Ex.P13 is the ‘B’ Extract of the RC of trailer bearing Reg.No.AP-39-UE-4909. PW3 is Administrative Officer of the District Transport Office, - 7 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 Tirupathi. As per the documents marked at Ex.R1, insurance policy was in force at the time of accident, but no policy was issued in favour of the trailer bearing Reg.No.AP-39-UE-4909. 8. Further, Ex.P3 is the IMV Report on the inspection report, the Tribunal observed that although the tractor was parked in the middle of the road, the driver of the car could have avoided the accident had he been driving slowly, but he was driving at a high speed. The height and the width of the tractor will not be less than 6 feet, the fact that the tractor was parked in the middle of the road and merely because the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the tractor, it cannot be said that he alone is negligent for causing the accident and held that the contributory negligence is applicable on part of P.Ramesh at 40% and that of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer as 60%. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment reported in 2023 ACJ 2386 in case of Laxmi - 8 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 Devi and Others Vs. Mehboob Ali and Others which has held as follows; “Apex Court observed that accident occurred at night and offending truck was parked in the middle of road without clear indication or signal therefore deceased could not notice the truck and held that truck driver was solely negligent in causing the accident.” He also relied upon the judgment reported in 2024 ACJ 2161 in case of Sushma Vs Nitin Ganapati Rangole and Others which has held as follows; “Car dashed against a truck lying unattended in the middle of highway without any indicators or parking lights causing death of three occupants of car and its driver and injury to one occupant-Tribunal and High Court found that accident could have been avoided had the car driver been cautious and applying the rule of last opportunity held that car driver was equally negligent in causing the accident- Accident occurred during night and no evidence is forthcoming that road at the accident spot was well lit therefore it would have been impossible for the incoming vehicles to sigh the stationary truck within a reasonable distance-Had the accident taken place during daytime or if the place of accident was well illuminated then car driver could have been held equally responsible for the accident by applying the rule of last opportunity-Truck was left abandoned in the middle of road in violation of rule 15 of Rules of the road Regulations, 1989 - 9 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 and no evidence is led to prove that leaving the truck in such position was beyond human control and that precautionary measures were taken while leaving the vehicle in that position-No evidence that car was driven at excessively high speed or car driver did not follow traffic rules-Whether accident occurred due to sole negligence of truck driver-Held: yes.” Also relied upon the judgment reported in 2024 ACJ 2019 in case of Radha Rani and others Vs Mohar Singh and another which has held as follows; “Car dashed against a stationary truck resulting in death of car driver-Tribunal and High court held that car driver was negligent to the extent of 20 percent- Held: truck was parked in the middle of road without any warning sign yet negligence has been attributed against car driver by observing that speed of car appeared to be extremely high and car driver could have avoided the accident; no material on record to substantiate such view; finding of contributory negligence of car driver set aside; award modified accordingly.” 10. Learned counsel for respondent/Insurance Company relied upon Civil Appeal No.10145/2016 in case of Nishan Singh & Ors Vs. Oriental Insurance Compnay Ltd., in which it was stated as follows, - 10 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 “subject truck was running ahead of the maruti car for quite some time about one kilometre and at the time of accident, the distance between the truck and maruti car was only 10 -15 feet. He has also admitted that the law mandates maintaining sufficient distance between two vehicles running in the same direction. It is also not in dispute that the road on which the two vehicles were moving was only about 14 feet wide.” In this case, the car dashed the stationed/parked vehicle in the middle of the road as such this citation is not applicable to the facts of the case 11. Learned counsel for appellants also relied upon the case of this court in MFA No.201429/2023 dated 6.11.2025 where it was held 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:- - 11 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 (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; (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” 12. In this case the truck was parked in the middle of the road without any indicators or signals. As per the above road regulations, parking of the lorry on the national highway itself is prohibited and the accident occurred at about 12.30 a.m., midnight and it is stated that P.Ramesh was not able to see parked vehicle. As such, he dashed the same. Therefore, the entire - 12 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 negligence is on the driver of the parked tractor on the middle of the road and there is no negligence on the part of P.Ramesh who was driving the car. The contributory negligence fixed to the extent of 40% is without appreciation of the facts properly and is set aside. 13. Though it is stated that the petitioner was aged 37 years working as driver and was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. and he has not filed any income proof, as he met with accident in the year 2022, his notional income to be taken as Rs.15,500/- per month as per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The multiplier taken is ‘15’. He is entitled for 40% towards future prospects as per National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 and one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal expenses = Rs.15,500 + 40% = Rs.21700 X 12 X 15 – ¼ = Rs.29,29,500/- (39,06,000 – 9,76,500) is granted towards loss of dependency. Further, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each, *Retyped and replaced vide Court order dtd:10.02.2026. - 13 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 towards parental consortium and petitioner No.4 is entitled for filial consortium. They are also entitled for Rs.33,000/- under the other conventional heads. 14. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.18,12,732/- to Rs. 31,38,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 15. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 06.02.2024 passed in MVC No.5539/2022 on the file of the VIII Addl. Small Causes Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Towards loss of dependency 29,29,500 2 Towards loss of consortium 1,76,000 3 Conventional heads 33,000 Total 31,38,500 *Retyped and replaced vide Court order dtd:10.02.2026. - 14 - MFA No. 5150 of 2024 Judge and MACT (SCCH-5), Bangalore, is modified. iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.31,38,500/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.18,12,732/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.13,25,768/- 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/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.: 95 *Retyped and replaced vide Court order dtd:10.02.2026.