Karnataka High Court
Smt Gangamma B vs Infant Travels Pvt Ltd on 30 June, 2025
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
MFA No. 7421 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH 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.7421 OF 2015 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT GANGAMMA B.,
W/O V. NARASAPPAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
2. SRI. V. NARASAPPAYYA
S/O LATE SUBBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
3. MAMATHA N.,
D/O V. NARASAPPAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
4. AMRUTHA N
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N D/O V. NARASAPPAYYA,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
5. SMT. GOWRAMMA V
W/O LATE SUBBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.19, "SHREE NILAYA",
IIND CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT,
NEW B.E.L. ROAD, M S R I T POST,
BENGALURU-560054.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA T., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
MFA No. 7421 of 2015
HC-KAR
AND:
1. INFANT TRAVELS PVT LTD.,
NO.5, SUBEDAR GARDEN,
KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560038.
2. MANAGER
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.105-A, 1ST FLOOR,
CEARS PALAZA, NO.136,
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MUNI REDDY A., ADV. FOR R1,
SRI. P.S. JAGADEESH, ADV. FOR R2.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1881/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU, 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 MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
MFA No. 7421 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
Appellant/claimants have preferred this appeal against
the Judgment and award dated 30th June, 2015 passed in MVC
No.1881 of 2014 by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge,
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small
Causes, Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as the
"Tribunal").
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on 28th
February, 2014 at 00.15 hours, deceased was proceeding on
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04/HM-0032 on New
BDA Ring Road, along with his friend as pillion rider and was
going towards Nagarabavi. While so proceeding, near ITI
Junction, the deceased hit his motorcycle to a Tata Sumo
bearing registration No.KA-53/A-4487 which was parked by its
driver on the Ring Road in a dark place negligently without
blinkers or any precautions. Due to impact, deceased fell and
sustained head injury and injuries to other parts of the body.
Pillion Rider also sustained injuries to his body. Immediately
deceased was shifted to Panacea Hospital, where Doctor
declared that deceased succumbed to the Head injury sustained
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
HC-KAR
in the accident. The jurisdictional Traffic Police registered a
case against the driver of Tata Sumo in Crime No.38 of 2014
for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of
Indian Penal Code and filed charge-sheet. Petitioners, being
the dependents of the deceased, filed claim petition before the
Tribunal seeking compensation.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained
absent and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance
company appeared and filed written statement contending that
the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and
effective driving license as on the date of accident. The
accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of
the motorcycle. The rider of the motorcycle, without properly
looking to the vehicle movement and without noticing the
stationary vehicle, had recklessly ridden the motorcycle and
dashed against the Tata Sumo that was parked vehicle on the
left side of the road taking all precautions. It is also contended
that the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving
license as on the date of accident. Further, the insurance
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
HC-KAR
company has denied all the averments made in the claim
petition and sought for its dismissal.
4. Based on the pleadings, Tribunal framed issues. To
prove the case of the claimants, petitioner No.1 herself got
examined as PW1 and marked 35 documents as Exhibits P1 to
P35. On closure of prosecution side evidence, Smt. Prathiba,
Assistant Manager working in respondent-Insurance Company
was examined RW1 and marked four documents as Exhibits R1
to R4. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Tribunal
has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded total
compensation of Rs.14,73,000/-. The Tribunal has fastened
50% contributory negligence on the rider of motorcycle and
accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.7,36,500/- with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realisation. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal, claimants are before this court in
this appeal, seeking enhancement in the compensation as well
as questioning the saddling of contributory negligence at 50%
on the deceased.
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
HC-KAR
5. Learned Counsel Sri Parameshwarappa, appearing
for the appellant/claimants, submits that the Tribunal has erred
in allowing the claim petition only in part. The Tribunal has
also committed an error in saddling contributory negligence in
an extent of 50% on the deceased. He would submit that after
investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet
against accused No.1 H.C.Lingaraju driver of Tata Sumo and
accused No.2 Subrahmanya, rider of motorcycle for offence
punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal
Code. The claimants have pleaded in the claim petition that
the driver of Tata sumo has parked the vehicle on the Ring
Road negligently and without switching on blinkers or taking
any precautions. As a result, the rider of the motorcycle
dashed to the same. To substantiate this, PW1-Smt.
Gangamma, mother of the deceased, has clearly deposed in her
evidence as to the negligent act on the part of the driver of
Tata Sumo in parking the vehicle on the road without taking
any precautionary measure. During the course of cross-
examination of PW1, the respondents have not questioned
anything in this regard. RW1-Smt. Prathibha, has not disputed
that the Tata Sumo was stationed on the road. However, she
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
HC-KAR
has deposed that the driver of the said vehicle has stationed
the same taking all precautions that too on the left side of the
road. During her cross-examination, she has clearly admitted
that the accident occurred between two electric poles, as per
Sketch-Exhibit P3. On all these grounds sought to allow the
appeal.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
parties, the point that would arise for our consideration is
whether the appellants have made out grounds to interfere with
the impugned judgment as to saddling contributory negligence
at 50% on the rider of motorcycle, as well as with regard to
quantum of compensation?
7. We have examined the materials placed before us.
It is the case of the appellants that on 28th February, 2014,
during mid-night, while deceased was proceeding on
motorcycle on New BDA Ring Road, along with his friend as
pillion rider, he dashed the motorcycle to a stationed Tata
Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.KA-53/A-4487 which was
parked by its driver on the Ring Road in a dark place
negligently without switching on blinkers or any taking safety
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
HC-KAR
precautions. Due to the impact, deceased fell and sustained
head injury and injuries to other parts of the body. Pillion Rider
also sustained injuries to his body. Immediately, the injured
was shifted to Panacea Hospital, where the Doctors told that
the injured succumbed to head injuries suffered in the accident.
8. We have examined rough sketch-Exhibit P3
prepared by Police Inspector of Byatarayanapura Traffic Police,
Mysore Road, Bangalore and also the spot panchanama. As per
these documents, the Tata Sumo was stationed on the road
facing western side of the road. The road leads from
Nagarbhavi to Mysore Road and the width of the road 30 feet.
As per the sketch, the offending vehicle, was parked five feet
away from the edge of the road. Prosecution papers also
disclose that the driver of the Tata Sumo parked the same
without taking any precautions as per provisions of Section 122
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
9. Section 122 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as
under:
"Section 122: No person in charge of the motor
vehicle shall cause or allow a vehicle or any trailer to be
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
HC-KAR
abandoned or to remain at rest on any public place in
such a position or in such a condition or in such
circumstances as to cause or likely to cause danger,
obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the
public place or to the passengers."
10. Section 8 of Karnataka Traffic Control Act, 1960
contemplates that no person in charge of a vehicle or animal
shall cause the vehicle at rest on any highway in such a
position to cause undue inconvenience to other users of the
highway or public place. Rule 3 of Karnataka Traffic Control
Rules, 1979 also sets out regarding removal of stationary
vehicles and vehicles abandoned which cause or likely to cause
danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to the users of the
highway.
11. Regulation 5 of Central Motor Vehicles (Driving)
Regulations, 2017 stipulates that the driver shall ensure that
his vehicle, while moving or when stationary, does not cause
any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or to
the occupants of any properties.
12. In the case on hand, the driver of offending vehicle
was not examined before the Court to prove that he has taken
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
HC-KAR
necessary precautionary measures as per Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, Karnataka Traffic Control Act, 1960, Karnataka Traffic
Control Rules, 1979 and Central Motor Vehicles (Driving)
Regulations, 2017, before parking the vehicle on the road.
There is no evidence to show that the driver of the offending
vehicle had switched on blinkers and took other precautionary
measures while parking the vehicle on the road. Had the driver
of the offending vehicle not parked the same on the road, the
unfortunate accident wouldn't have occurred. The investigating
officer ought to have filed charge sheet against the driver of the
offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 283
of Indian Penal Code and also for taking necessary action for
violation of the above said Act, Rules and Regulations.
Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer has mechanically
submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending
vehicle as also the rider of the motorcycle without initiating
action against the driver of offending vehicle under Section 283
of Indian Penal Code. The Tribunal has also not framed issue
as to the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of
motorcycle. However, based on the charge-sheet, the Tribunal
has fixed the contributory negligence in an extent of 50% on
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
HC-KAR
the rider of the motorcycle, which is not correct. The Tribunal
has to assess the evidence on record independently. On re-
appreciation, re-examination and re-consideration of the entire
evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the
accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the
driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the Insurer of the
Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.KA-53/A-4487, is liable to
pay the compensation.
13. With regard to quantum of compensation, as per
the evidence of PW1, deceased was aged 22 years and was
working as a Software Engineer at HP Company and was
drawing a salary of Rs.31,558/- per month along with other
perks. Smt. Madhumita M., HR of HP Company is examined as
PW2. The Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the
income of the deceased at Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. The
evidence of PW2 and Exhibit P15-salary slip of the deceased for
the month of January 2014 reveals that the salary of the
deceased was Rs.31,558/-. Admittedly, the deceased was 22
years as on the date of accident and was working as Software
Engineer at HP Company. Considering the age, avocation and
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
HC-KAR
Exhibit P15-salary slip which is for the month of January 2014,
we are of the considered view that it is just and proper to
assess the income of the deceased at Rs.31,558/- per month.
From the said amount, Rs.200/- has to be deducted towards
professional tax. Accordingly, the income of the deceased
comes to Rs.31,358/- per month. As per the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in
AIR 2017 SC 5157, 50% is to be added towards future
prospects. Then the income of the deceased would be
Rs.47,037/-. As the deceased was aged 22 years as on the
date of accident, 50% is to be deducted towards his personal
expenses and after giving deduction, the monthly income of the
deceased would be Rs.23,519/-. The appropriate multiplier
commensurate to the age of the deceased according to the
decision of 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, is 18.
Accordingly, the loss of dependency would be Rs.50,80,104/-
(Rs.23,519 x 12 x 18). Further, as per the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
HC-KAR
appellants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of
consortium, and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and
towards obsequies and funeral expenses. In the result, the
appellants are entitled for revised compensation as under:
Sl.No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1. Towards loss of dependency 50,80,104.00
2. Towards loss of consortium 2,00,000.00
(Rs.40,000/- x 5)
3. Towards loss of estate 15,000.00
4. Towards obsequies and funeral rites 15,000.00
Total 53,10,104.00
Accordingly, we answer the point formulated for consideration,
in the affirmative.
14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part;
ii) Judgment and award dated 30th June, 2015
passed in MVC No.1881 of 2014 by the XXII
Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small
Causes, Bengaluru is modified holding that the
claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.53,10,104/- as against the amount of
Rs.14,73,000/- by the Tribunal;
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22911-DB
HC-KAR
iii) The compensation carries interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realisation;
iii) Insurance company shall deposit the amount
with accrued interest before the Tribunal
within 60 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this Judgment;
iv) Apportionment and disbursement of the
compensation amount shall be as per the
award of the Tribunal;
v) Registry to draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
