Karnataka High Court
Smt.Halamma vs Shivanandappa on 25 January, 2025
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB
MFA No. 100830 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100830 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.HALAMMA W/O. SHIVAPPA VADDAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: APINAKOPPA VILLAGE,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. KUMRI.RANJITHA D/O. SHIVAPPA VADDAR,
AGE: 12 YEARS,OCC: STUDENT, MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HER
GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1,
R/O: APINAKOPPA VILLAGE,
Digitally TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
signed by
SHAKAMBARI
3. KUMARI.ANITHA D/O. SHIVAPPA VADDAR,
Location: AGE: 11 YEARS,OCC: STUDENT, MINOR,
High Court of
Karnataka, REPRESENTED BY HER
Dharwad GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1,
Bench R/O: APINAKOPPA VILLAGE,
TQ: HIREKERUR,DIST: HAVERI.
4. SMT.HANUMAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA VADDAR,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: APINAKOPPA VILLAGE,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH. L. HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI, PATIL M. H. ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB
MFA No. 100830 of 2016
AND:
1. SHIVANANDAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,OCC: AGRICULTURE,
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING RE. NO.KA-15/K-2189),
R/O: BILKI, TQ: SIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
2. MANOHAR @ MANU S/O. PALAKSHAPPA ATTIKATTI,
AGE: 31 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE,
(DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING REG. NO.KA-15/K-2189)
R/O: BILKI, TQ: SIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
3. PALAKSHAPPA S/O. BASAVARAJAPPA ATTIKATTI,
AGE: 60 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BILKI, TQ: SIKARIPUR,DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
4. MAHENDRA S/O. PALAKSHAPPA ATTIKATTI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
(DRIVER OF KA-15/K-3115C.T.100)
R/O: BILKI, TQ: SIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. B. MUTALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT 1988, PRAYING TO, ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL
AND ALSO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD BY HOLDING
THAT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 WAS EXCLUSIVELY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT AND 100%
NEGLIGENCE IS TO BE FIXED ON HIM AND THE ENTIRE
LIABILITY IS TO BE FIXED AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS
INSTEAD OF 30% AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D.
HUDDAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB
MFA No. 100830 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
This appeal is by the claimants in MVC No.160/2011
on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT,
Hirekerur [for short 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal has allowed
the claimants petition by the impugned judgment and award
dated 27.01.2016 granting a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- under
the following heads:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 10,75,000-00
2. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000-00
3. Towards transportation of Rs. 10,000-00
the dead body and funeral
4. Towards loss of estate Rs. 20,000-00
5. Towards loss of love and Rs. 40,000-00
affection
Total Rs. 11,55,000-00
2. Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, the learned counsel
for the claimants, is categorical that the claimants do not
dispute the quantum but they are aggrieved by the
Tribunal's conclusion that they must receive 30% of the
compensation as the deceased had also contributed to the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB
accident, and that his contribution is 70%. The learned
counsel, inviting this Court's attention to the Tribunal's
findings that there was a road accident on 15.11.2008
involving three motorcycles and that the deceased Sivappa
was riding one of these motorcycles, canvasses that the
Tribunal, in the claim competitions [MVC Nos.28, 29 and 30
of 2010] filed by the other claimants/victims, has opined
that the contributory negligence was 50%, but in the present
case it has opined that the deceased was negligent to a
greater extent.
3. The Tribunal's finding in this regard reads
as under:
"17. On perusal of the materials on record,
reveals that, accident has occurred in
between three motor-cycles. The deceased
was also one of the rider of the motor cycle.
The Judgment in MVC.No.28, 29 and 30/10
clearly reveals that, the deceased was held
responsible for the accident, even the another
rider was also held responsible for the said
accident. In the instant case, it can be seen
that, it was the deceased who went in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB
high speed in a rash and negligent manner
and collided to the motorcycle that was
coming from opposite direction, and that
resulted in the collision of the said motor
cycle with the another motorcycle. Therefore,
it reveals that, the negligence of the deceased
is of a higher degree when compare to the
other riders. In the said MVC.No.28, 29 and
30/10 the L.Rs of the deceased Shivappa
were made as respondent and the Judgment
is passed against them wherein contributory
negligence is taken as 50%. This judgment is
not challenged by the respondents i.e., the
petitioners in this case. It reveals that,
deceased collided to one motorcycle, that in
turn collided to another motorcycle.
Therefore, under these circumstances, I hold
that, it is due to the contributory negligence
of the deceased, this accident has occurred
and as such, his contribution towards this
accident is to an extent of 70%.
Respondent No.1, 2, 4 and 5 being the
riders and owners are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
Therefore, my finding on the above issue is
partly in the affirmative."
4. Sri.S.B.Muttalli, the learned counsel for the
respondents who are held jointly and severally responsible
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB
to pay the compensation, is heard in the light of the afore.
This Court must opine that if the Tribunal, in the claim
petition arising out of the same accident, has concluded on
appreciation of same evidence that the riders had equally
contributed to the accident, this Court must opine that,
unless there was extraordinary circumstances, the
contributory negligence in the present case could not have
at a higher percentage. The Tribunal's reasoning does not
indicate any such circumstance and the learned counsel for
the respondents is also unable to point out such
circumstance. In the light of the afore, the following:
ORDER
[A] The appeal is allowed in part.
[B] The Tribunal's finding that the
claimants would be entitled to 30% of
₹11,55,000/- is modified and the
claimants are held to be entitled to 50%
of such amount along with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1446-DB
[C] The Registry is directed to draw
award accordingly.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
PJ/CT-vg
