Prema K Vs Mubarak Sharif @ Mubharak Sharif

MUBARAK SHARIF @ MUBHARAK SHARIF, S/O MOHAMMED SHARIF, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTURANA KOTTIGE VILLAGE, KODIGENAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572 227.

¶26

MANJULA SHIVANANDA, W/O SHIVAANDA MURTHY S., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHANKAR COIL MILLS, KAIDALA GATE, KODIHALLI POST, NONAVINAKERE HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 224.

¶27

THE MANAGER,

¶28

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INS. CO., LTD., NO.25/1, 2ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO.1,

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17765 MFA No. 571 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING, NO.1, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU CITY - 560 001.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R3 VIDE ORDER DTAED 01.04.2026 NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶34

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.03.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.188/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶35

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶36

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 23.03.2023 passed in MVC No.188/2022 on the file of the I Additional District and

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:17765 MFA No. 571 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, for enhancing the compensation.

¶44

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶45

the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶46

The brief facts of the case are that, one Sri. Rudresh while riding a motorcycle, met with an accident on 17.10.2021 and died subsequently. His wife, children and mother filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.26,15,584/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation from respondent Nos.1 and 3. It is stated that the negligence of the TATA ACE driver is 20% and that of the lorry driver is 80%, and accordingly, respondent Nos.1 and 3 were directed to deposit the amount. Being aggrieved by the

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17765 MFA No. 571 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

said order, the claimants have preferred this appeal and mainly contented that the Tribunal erred in fixing contributory negligence at 20% on respondent No.1 on the ground that the vehicle was not insured. Since two vehicles were involved, respondent No.3, is a tortfeasor and thus, requested this Court to direct the Insurance Company to pay the entire compensation with liberty to recover 20% from the owner of the vehicle.

¶50

It is further stated that the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of the accident and therefore, future prospects has to be taken at 40% instead of 25%. He was doing agriculture, areca nut and coconut business and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But the Tribunal erred in taking his notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month and in deducting 1/4^th towards personal expenses instead of 1/5^th and also interest is to be granted at the rate of 12%. Manner of accident shows that on 17.10.2021, Rudresh was proceeding on a Hero Honda Passion Pro motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-44-K-1219 on the extreme end of left

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:17765 MFA No. 571 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

side of Tiptur-Turuvekere road and at that time, the driver

¶54

of the TATA ACE bearing Reg.No.KA-03-AA-0032 was parking his vehicle on the road in a negligent manner without following the traffic rules and opened the door of the driver's side without noticing the vehicle which was moving on the road. As a result, the door was hit to Rudresh and he fell down on the road and the driver of the Ashoka Leyland lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-B-6267 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and the wheel of the lorry ran over the head of Rudresh and he died on the spot. So, the Tribunal held that there is negligence of 20% on the part of the driver of the TATA ACE vehicle and 80% on the part of the driver of the Ashoka Leyland lorry.

¶55

Though the learned counsel for the respondent

¶56

stated that the entire negligence is on the driver of the Ashoka Leyland lorry, he has not filed any appeal. The Tribunal fixed contributory negligence at 20% on the TATA ACE vehicle and 80% on the driver of the lorry.

¶57

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:17765 MFA No. 571 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the TATA ACE vehicle and

¶60

he has no insurance. The claimants are at liberty to recover the compensation amount from any one of the joint tortfeasors. In this case, respondent No.2 is the owner of the Ashoka Leyland lorry and respondent No.3 is the insurance company of respondent No.2. Therefore, this Court finds it just and reasonable to direct respondent No.3 to deposit the entire compensation with liberty to recover 20% of the amount from the owner of the TATA

¶61

ACE vehicle by due process of law.

¶62

As per the Aadhar card, the deceased was born in the year 1980 and met with an accident in the year 2021 and thus, the Tribunal has considered his age as 41 years and applied the multiplier as 14 and taken future prospects at 25%. Learned counsel of the appellants stated that, as per the Post Mortem Report and inquest report, the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of the accident and that the Aadhar card is not an authenticated document regarding proof of age. He further relied upon

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:17765 MFA No. 571 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

the judgment reported in Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India, MANU/SC/1054/2018 to contend that the age of Rudresh is to be considered as 40 years as per the Post Mortem Report. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take his age as 40 years at the time of the accident as per

¶66

Post Mortem Report and accordingly, the multiplier applicable is ‘15’.

¶67

As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2018

¶68

SAR (Civil) 37 for the persons aged between 40 and 50 years, the future prospects is to be taken as 25%. The Tribunal has rightly considered 25% towards future prospects and it needs no interference. As the dependents

¶69

are five in number, 1/4^th is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, Loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,000/- + 25% x 12 x 15 – 1/4^th = Rs.25,31,250/- . Petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards Spousal Consortium; petitioner

¶70

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:17765 MFA No. 571 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Nos.2 and 4 are entitled to Rs.44,000/- each towards Parental Consortium; petitioner Nos.3 and 5 are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each towards Filial Consortium and sum of Rs.33,000/- is awarded towards Loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶73

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court

¶74

is as below:

¶75

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Towards loss of dependency	25,31,250/-
2	Towards spousal consortium to petitioner No.1	44,000/-
3	Towards parental consortium to petitioner No.2 and Petitioner No.4	44,000/- 44,000/-
4	Towards filial consortium to petitioner No.3 and Petitioner No.5	44,000/- 44,000/-
5	Towards Loss of estate and Funeral Expenses	33,000/-
	Total	27,84,250/-

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:17765 MFA No. 571 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled for

¶80

a total compensation of Rs.27,84,250/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶81

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶82

ORDER

¶83

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶84

ii. The judgment and award dated 23.03.2023 passed in MVC No.188/2022 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakurur, is modified.

¶85

iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.27,84,250/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.26,15,584/granted by the tribunal.

¶86

11 -

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:17765 MFA No. 571 of 2025

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

iv. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company has deposited 80% of the awarded amount. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,68,666/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶90