HC allowed part of the appeal against MVC Tribunal award. Court increased compensation from under Rs.3.56 lakh to Rs.6.65 lakh by reducing deceased's share of contributory negligence from 60% to 40%. Adjusted income calculation based on notional norms.
Judgment and award of Principal D & S J-MACT modified; compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,65,760.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2025:KHC:21043-DB MFA No. 2751 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2751 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
BOTH COOLIE WORKERS, R/O GAVANAHALLI, BEHIND SIPHANI SAW MILL CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 133.
…APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. Y. VARUN SAI, ADV. FOR SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2025:KHC:21043-DB MFA No. 2751 of 2021
HC-KAR
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.R. RAVI SHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2, SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV. FOR R3, NOTICE TO R1 - D/W.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 06.01.2021, PASSED IN MVC NO.90/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
Appellants have preferred this appeal against the
Judgment and Award dated 06th January 2021 passed in MVC No.90 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
HC-KAR
Chikkamagaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), challenging the saddling of 60% contributory negligence on the part of rider of motorcycle as also seeking enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC:21043-DB MFA No. 2751 of 2021
HC-KAR
compensation of Rs.3,56,720/-. Challenging the said Judgment and Award, appellants are before the court in this appeal.
appellants, would submit that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He would submit that after investigation, the Investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-18/B0182. Sri Shivakumar, one of the eye-witnesses shown in the charge-sheet, who is examined as PW2, has deposed as to the accident in which he has clearly stated that the driver of Tipper came from opposite side in rash and negligent manner on the right side of the road and dashed to the motorcycle. The impact of which was, the rider of the motorcycle fell and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The trial Court ignored the evidence of PW2, and also the charge-sheet submitted against the driver of the tipper and fixed the contributory negligence in an extent of 60% on the rider of the motorcycle, which is not sustainable under law. He would further submit that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the notional income of the
HC-KAR
deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month which is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. His further submission is that the Tribunal has also not awarded just compensation under the other heads as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On all these grounds he sought to allow the appeal.
HC-KAR
dated 9th September 2020 and the matter was remanded back
to the Tribunal with liberty to the parties to examine the witness to the accident. Thereafter, PW2-Shivakumar, eyewitness to the accident, was examined. The Tribunal has passed the Judgment and award fastening the liability in the ratio of 60:40 on the rider of motorcycle and the driver of Tipper, respectively.
the spot and conducted spot panchanama, recorded the statement of witnesses and after thorough investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the driver of tipper for commission of offence punishable and Section 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken by the learned
Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikmagalur and case was registered against the driver of tipper in CC No.109 of 2013.
HC-KAR
One of the eye witnesses, viz. Shivakumar, who was examined as PW2, has deposed as to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the tipper. As against this, the insurance company has adduced evidence of one Nanjaiah as RW1, who has deposed in his evidence that the deceased, on the date of accident, was coming from the opposite direction of Aldur to Chikkamagalur in high speed, rash and negligent manner, and had dashed to the tipper. Further, the rider of the motorcycle was also not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident.
HC-KAR
has also deposed as to Exhibit R2-spot sketch prepared by him. On perusal of these evidence, The Tribunal has held that as per the photo at exhibit P8 and sketch at Exhibit R1, the vehicles were at extreme left side of the road running from Chikkamagalur to Mudigere. The motorcycle was lying at the left front wheel of the Tipper. There is a curve at a distance of about 20 feet from the accident spot. The deceased motorcyclist was coming from Mudigere to Chikkamagaluru and the Tipper Lorry was proceeding from Chikkamagaluru to Mudigere. As per the evidence of PW2-Shivakumar, after the accident, the position of the vehicle was changed and they were parked on the left side of the road to pave way to the on-going traffic. However, in the sketch at Exhibit R2, the accident spot was shown on the left side of the road, and the motorcycle was lying at the front left wheel of the tipper. The Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of both, the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the tipper, and there was collision between two vehicles and the motorcycle was completely damaged. The left front portion of the tipper was also damaged; the width of the road at the spot is only 20 feet and the tipper was also on the asphalt Road.
NC: 2025:KHC:21043-DB MFA No. 2751 of 2021
HC-KAR
With these observations, the Tribunal has held that the both the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the tipper have contributed to the accident in the ratio of 60:40. On reappreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence and record, it is clear that after investigation, respondent No.3-investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the tipper and he has not made any accusation against the rider of the motorcycle. However, on perusal of rough sketch Exhibits R1 and R2, the same would make it clear that the driver of tipper has applied break before the accident. Considering the evidence of driver of Tipper, so also the rough sketch Exhibits R1 and R2, we are of the view that there is contributory negligence both by the rider of the motorcycle, so also, the driver of the tipper to the accident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is just and proper to fix the contributory negligence on the rider of the motorcycle at 40% and on the driver of the tipper at 60%.
HC-KAR
Rs.15,000/- per month. But no documentary evidence
produced in this behalf. In the absence of any documentary evidence produced by the appellants to substantiate the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month. The same is not in consonance with the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the chart, for the accidents of the year 2012, the notional income has be taken at Rs.7,000/- per month. As per the decision of the Hon' ble Supreme Court, in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, 40% is to be added to the income towards future prospects. If the same is added, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.9,800/- per month. It has come in the evidence that deceased was a divorcee and was not having wife or children. Accordingly 50% is to be deducted towards the personal expenses. Then the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.4,900/-. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier commensurate to the age of the
HC-KAR
deceased is 17, and the same is rightly taken by the Tribunal. Hence, the loss of dependency would be Rs.9,99,600/(Rs.4,900/-x12x17) as against the amount of Rs.8,56,800/awarded by the Tribunal. Further, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018)18 SCC 130, the appellants are entitled for "filial consortium" at Rs.40,000/each, accordingly the same is awarded; Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- is awarded to obsequies and funeral expenses. In the result, the total compensation would be Rs.11,09,600/-. As we have held that the deceased has contributed to the accident in an extent 40%, out of the total compensation, the appellants are entitled to Rs.6,65,760/as against the amount of Rs.3,56,720/- awarded by the Tribunal. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
1. Appeal is allowed in part;
2. The judgment and award dated 06th January, 2021 passed in MVC No.90 of 2013 by the
NC: 2025:KHC:21043-DB MFA No. 2751 of 2021
HC-KAR
Principal District and Sessions Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chikkamagaluru is modified holding that the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.6,65,760/as against Rs.3,56,720/awarded by the Tribunal;
3. The apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be as per the order of the Tribunal.
4. Registry to draw award accordingly.
Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in saddling 60% contributory negligence on the deceased motorcyclist when the driver of the tipper lorry was also at fault.
Whether the Tribunal correctly calculated notional income and compensation quantum applying Karnataka State Legal Services Authority guidelines and Supreme Court precedents.
Whether the appeal should be allowed on grounds of contributory negligence and remittance of the compensation amount.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERSExplained¶70
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017 ACJ 2700
SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHERExplained¶70
SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERSApplied¶70
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018)18 SCC 130 · Who else cites this
SMT GOWRAMMA W/O SHIVANNA
SRI. SHIVANNA
SRI C B MALLIKARJUNA
SRI.M.V. SHADAKSHARI
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
B M SHYAM PRASAD
G BASAVARAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
