Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Laxman S/O Nirupadi Pujeri on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
MFA No. 101978 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018
MFA No. 102765 of 2018
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MFA NO. 101978 OF 2018 (MV)
C/W. MFA NO. 101979 OF 2018 (MV-D)
MFA NO. 102765 OF 2018 (MV-D) &
MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018 (MV-D
IN MFA NO. 101978 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR 3217, MATRU CHAYA,
BUS STAND ROAD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL AND:
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
1. LAXMAN S/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI,
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: KAITNAL, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.
2. SMT. RUKMAVVA W/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI,
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KAITNAL, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.
3. MALLAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA KITTUR,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
MFA No. 101978 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018
MFA No. 102765 of 2018
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
R/O. MAKKALAGERI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.
4. ASHOK S/O. SIDDAPPA POTALL,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAITANAL, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR
SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. SANTOSH HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN MVC NO.1204/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK, AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1204/2016, ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
GOKAK AND ETC.
IN MFA NO. 101979 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR 3217,
MATRU CHAYA, BUS STAND ROAD,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LAXMAN S/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: KAITNAL, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
MFA No. 101978 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018
MFA No. 102765 of 2018
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
2. SMT. RUKMAVVA W/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI,
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KAITNAL, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-
591307.
3. MALLAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA KITTUR
AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAKKALAGERI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.
4. ASHOK S/O. SIDDAPPA POTALI,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAITANAL, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR
SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. SANTOSH HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN MVC NO.1205/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK, AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1205/2016, ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
GOKAK AND ETC.
IN MFA NO. 102765 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. LAXMAN S/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI,
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. KAITANAL, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591320.
2. SMT. RUKMAVVA W/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI,
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KAITANAL, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST:BELAGAVI-591320.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
MFA No. 101978 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018
MFA No. 102765 of 2018
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR
SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MALLAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA KITTUR,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAKKALAGERI, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST:BELAGAVI-591323.
2. THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
FIRST FLOOR, 3217 MATRUCHAYA,
BUS STAND ROAD GOKAK,
BELAGAVI-591329.
3. ASHOK SIDDAPPA PATOLI,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAITANAL, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST:BELAGAVI-591320.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFIED THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED BY THE
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T GOKAK M.V.C
NO.1205/2016 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. LAXMAN S/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI,
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O.KAITANAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591320.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
MFA No. 101978 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018
MFA No. 102765 of 2018
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
2. SMT. RUKMAVVA W/O. NIRUPADI PUJERI,
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KAITANAL, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST:BELAGAVI-591320.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR
SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MALLAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA KITTUR,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAKKALAGERI, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST:BELAGAVI-591323.
2. THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
FIRST FLOOR, 3217 MATRUCHAYA,
BUS STAND ROAD GOKAK,
BELAGAVI-591329.
3. ASHOK SIDDAPPA PATOLI,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAITANAL, TAL:GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591320.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1204/2016
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GOKAK, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
MFA No. 101978 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101979 of 2018
MFA No. 102765 of 2018
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
1. Since all these appeals arise out of a common
judgment and award dated 3rd February 2018 passed in
MVC Nos.1204/2016 and 1205/2016 by the Prl. Senior Civil
Judge, Gokak (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal").
They are taken up together for final disposal.
2. MFA Nos.101978/2018 and 101979/2018 have
been filed by the insurer, challenging its liability to pay the
compensation. Similarly MFA Nos.102765/218 and
102766/2018 have been filed by the claimants, seeking
enhancement of compensation.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.
4. The claimants in MVC No.1204/2016 are the
husband and mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Renuka
W/o. Laxman Pujeri, and the claimants in MVC
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
No.1205/2016 are the parents of the deceased minor
daughter, Kumari Muttewwa.
5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent
No.2 is the insurer of the offending tractor and trailer
bearing registration Nos.KA-25/T-1513 and KA-25/T-435;
and respondent No.3 is the owner of motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-49/S-2600.
6. Brief facts of the case are that, on 19.01.2016 at
around 1:30 p.m. one Ashok Siddappa Potali was
proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
49/S-2600, carrying three passengers as pillion riders by
name Rukmavva, Renuka Pujeri, and her daughter
Muttewwa, aged about 2 years, from Kaitanal to Khangoan.
When they reached near Rani Chennamma Residential
School, the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing
registration Nos. Nos.KA-25/T-1513 and KA-25/T-435,
drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the motorcycle, in which the aforementioned four
persons were travelling. As a result of which, all the four
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
persons fell down, Muttewwa as well as Renuka sustained
grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment, both of
them died due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
7. It is the further case of the claimants in MVC
No.1204/2016 that the deceased Renuka was aged about
24 years and was doing animal husbandry, earning
Rs.12,000/- per month and was contributing her earnings
to the family. Based on these grounds, the claimants have
prayed for an award of compensation in a sum of
Rs.40,00,000/-.
8. It is contended by the claimants in MVC
No.1205/2016 that, the deceased Muttewwa, was aged
about 2 years and was a minor. The claimants prayed to
award Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.
9. Respondent No.2 - Insurer filed the written
statement in both these cases. The contentions are more or
less similar, and it has denied all the averments made in
the claim petitions. According to the insurer, the accident
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
had occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the
motorcycle by Ashok Potali, who was not holding a valid
and effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle. In the
alternative, respondent No.2 contended that the accident
occurred due to the contributory negligence of rider of the
motorcycle and the driver of the tractor and trailer and their
respective contributions are in the ratio of 50:50. Based on
these grounds, respondent No.2 prayed for the dismissal of
the claim petitions.
10. Respondent No.3 appeared and did not file any
objections. Respondent No.1 filed objections, denying the
averments made in the claim petitions. It is further stated
that, the tractor and trailer were insured with respondent
No.2, and if the Tribunal decides that respondent No.1 is
liable to pay the compensation, it shall be the responsibility
of respondent No.2 to indemnify the same.
11. The Tribunal framed necessary issues in this
regard for its consideration. The Tribunal clubbed both
these matters and recorded common evidence.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
12. The claimants examined two witnesses as PW1
and PW2 and got marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12.
The respondents examined one witness as RW1 and got
marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
13. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and
on appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned
judgment and award, awarded compensation of
Rs.6,91,972/- in favour of the claimants in MVC
No.1204/2016 and Rs.5,50,000/- in favour of the claimants
in MVC No.1205/2016.
14. Being aggrieved by the same, both the claimants
as well as the insurer filed the above said appeals.
15. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer
submits that based on the charge sheet and its enclosures,
including the Motor Vehicle Inspection report regarding the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
damage to the motorcycle, it is clear that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the
motorcycle by its rider. The rider of the motorcycle was
carrying four passengers, which is contrary to the permitted
limit. Furthermore, the rider of the motorcycle had no valid
and effective driving licence to ride such a class of
motorcycle. All these facts clearly demonstrate that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the
motorcycle and there was no contribution from the driver of
the tractor and trailer.
17. The claimants have prevailed over the police
authorities and the Police filed a charge sheet against the
driver of the tractor alleging that he was responsible for the
accident in question. He further contends that alternatively
the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of
the rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the
tractor and trailer. He states that based on the evidence
and the manner in which the accident occurred, the
negligence can be apportioned in the ratio of 50:50. Based
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
on these reasons, learned cousenl prayed that the appeal
be allowed.
18. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that
according to the charge sheet and its enclosures, the
motorcycle was ahead of tractor and trailer. The allegation
against the driver of the tractor and trailer is that he moved
to the extreme left side of the road and collided with front
portion of the motorcycle. As a result, the rider of the
motorcycle lost his balance and fell down. There was no
negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle.
Therefore, the entire negligence of the driver of the tractor
and trailer. Accordingly, the Police have rightly charge
sheeted the driver of the tractor and trailer for the accident
in question. In the alternative, learned counsel also submits
that even if this Court considers the possibility that the
accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of
both the rider of the motorcycle and driver of the tractor
and trailer, the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle is
meager and at the most it may be 10%. Therefore, he
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
prayed to consider the aforesaid points and pass
appropriate orders.
19. Learned advocate for claimants further contends
that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased in
MVC No.1204/2016 as Rs.4,000/- per month. However,
even if the Tribunal had taken the income as per the chart
prepared by KALSA, the income would be Rs.8,750/- per
month. Further, the Tribunal has not added future prospects
to the income of the deceased. At the time of accident,
deceased was below the age of 40 years, and 40% of her
income has to be added towards future prospects. Out of
which, 1/3rd of the income must be deducted towards
personal expenses and the appropriate multiplier applicable
is 18. Based on these factors, the compensation could be
determined. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under conventional heads are also meager and requires
reconsideration. For these reasons, learned counsel prayed
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be
enhanced.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
20. Upon the hearing the learned counsel appearing
for the parties, the following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in
fastening the entire liability on the
Insurance Company, holding that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of
the driver of the tractor and trailer?
(ii) Whether the claimants in both cases are
entitled to an enhancement of
compensation?
Re: Point No.1:
21. Facts of accident and the involvement of both the
vehicles are not in dispute. The manner in which the
accident occurred is also not in dispute. The investigating
Officer registered FIR, investigated the case and charge
sheeted the driver of the tractor and trailer. No allegations
are made against the rider of the motorcycle in the charge
sheet. The insurer seriously disputes this facts on the
ground that rider of the motorcycle was mainly responsible
for the accident. He was not holding valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of accident. He was carrying
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
three passengers as pillion riders. It is quite natural that,
under these circumstances, he must have lost his balance
and dashed against the tractor and trailer, leading to the
accident. However, the Investigating Officer did not address
this issue. The alleged incident has taken place more or less
at the middle of the road. Both the drivers of the tractor
and trailer as well as the motorcycle were going on the
same direction. No damages were caused to the tractor and
trailer, which clearly indicates that the accident was
occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the
motorcycle.
22. She further contended that the Tribunal held that
the driver of the tractor and trailer is responsible for the
accident on the basis of the charge sheet filed against him
without considering these facts. Therefore, the driver of the
tractor and trailer is not responsible for the accident.
23. Looking to the materials on record, there is some
merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
insurer. The accident had taken place more of less at the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
middle of the road. Both tractor and trailer as well as the
motorcycle were going in the same direction. There were
no damage to the tractor and trailer, which is noted in the
Mahazar as well as in the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report.
Most of the damage caused to the front side as well as the
left side of the motorcycle, as per Motor Vehicle Inspection
Report. Although insurer called upon respondent No.3 to
produce the driving licence of the rider of the motorcycle,
same was not produced by the owner i.e., respondent No.3.
Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn that the rider
of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence
at the time of accident.
24. As per the charge sheet and its enclosures, three
major passengers along with one minor girl aged about two
years, were travelling on the motorcycle. This might also
contributed for the accident in question. It is not the case of
the rider of the motorcycle or respondent No.3 that the
rider of the motorcycle had valid and effective driving
licence, but at the time of accident the same was expired.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
There is no evidence that motorcyclist had knowledge of
riding. When no such a case is made out, the manner in
which the accident had taken place indicate that the rider of
the motorcycle was also negligent and had also contributed
for the accident in question. It is also to be kept in mind
that driver of the tractor is charge sheeted by the police
and he did not challenge the same and facing trial.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
contributory negligence of the rider of the motorcycle is
assessed at 30% and 70% negligence is attributed to the
driver of the tractor and trailer. The Tribunal has not
considered these facts and only on the basis of the charge
sheet laid against the driver of the tractor and trailer,
directed the insurer to pay the compensation, which is
erroneous. Therefore, it needs modification. Accordingly,
point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
Re: Point No.2:
25. The deceased Renuka said to be aged about 24
years at the time of accident, and the Tribunal has also
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
accepted this fact. It is not in dispute that appropriate
multiplier applicable is 18. The claimants have contended
that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per months and
she was contributing to her family. However, the Tribunal
has taken the income of the deceased Renuka at Rs.4,000/-
per month, considering the age, date of accident, etc., the
income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Even
if the chart of the notional income prepared by the KSLSA is
considered, the income of a victim of an accident that had
taken place during the year 2016 is Rs.8,750/- per month,
the same could be applied to the facts of the present case.
In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
and others1, 40% of the income is to be added towards
loss of future prospects. There are totally two dependants.
Therefore 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased. On these
factors compensatory under the head loss of dependency is
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
re-assessed and quantified at Rs.17,64,000/- (Rs.8,750/-
+ 40% ÷ 1/3 x 12 x 18).
26. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu
Ram & Others2 as well as in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each
under the head 'loss of consortium'. Accordingly,
Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2) is awarded under the head
'loss of consortium, including loss of love and affection'.
27. Further, a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each is
awarded under the head 'loss of estate' and 'funeral and
transportation' respectively.
28. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for
compensation under various heads as under:
Sl. Heads. Amount in (Rs.)
No.
1. Loss of dependency Rs.17,64,000/-
(Rs.8,750/- + 40% - 1/3 x 12 x 18)
2. Loss of consortium Rs.80,000/-
2018 ACJ 2782
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
3. Loss of estate. Rs.15,000/-
4. funeral expenses. Rs.15,000/-
Total: Rs.18,74,000/-
29. Therefore, the claimants in MVC No.1204/2016
are entitled for compensation of Rs.18,74,000/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till its realization, as against Rs.6,91,972/- awarded by the
tribunal. Out of the said amount of compensation, 70%
i.e., Rs.13,11,800/- is to be paid by the insurer and the
remaining 30% i.e., Rs.5,62,200/- is to be paid by
respondent No.3, since the contributory negligence is
apportioned in the ratio of 70 : 30.
30. In MVC No.1205/2016, the deceased Kumari
Muttewwa was aged about two years at the time of
accident. The authority to assess the compensation in the
case of death of a minor is Kishan Gopal and Another v.
Lala and Others3, wherein it is held that in case of death
of a minor below the age of 10 years, the notional income
shall be considered as Rs.30,000/- per annum. Considering
(2014) 1 SCC 244
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
the age of the deceased, the appropriate applicable
multiplier is 15. Therefore loss of dependency is
re-assessed and quantified at Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000/-
x 15 ). Further, the claimants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads. In all the
claimants in MVC No.1205/2016 are entitled for
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization,
as against Rs.5,50,000/- awarded by the tribunal. Out of
the said amount of compensation, 70% i.e., Rs.3,50,000/-
is to be paid by the insurer and the remaining 30% i.e.,
Rs.1,50,000/- is to be paid by respondent No.3, since the
contributory negligence is apportioned in the ratio of 70 :
30.
31. For the aforesaid discussions, this Court pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeals are allowed in part.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
3rd February 2018 passed in MVC
Nos.1204/2016 and 1205/2016 by the Prl.
Senior Civil Judge, Gokak is modified.
(iii) The claimants in MVC No.1204/2016 are
entitled for compensation of
Rs.18,74,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
its realization, as against Rs.6,91,972/-
awarded by the tribunal. Out of the said
amount of compensation, 70% i.e.,
Rs.13,11,800/- shall be paid by the insurer
and the remaining 30% i.e., Rs.5,62,200/-
shall be paid by respondent No.3, since the
contributory negligence is apportioned in
the ratio of 70:30.
(iv) The claimants in MVC No.1205/2016 are
entitled for compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
its realization, as against Rs.5,50,000/-
awarded by the tribunal. Out of the said
amount of compensation, 70% i.e.,
Rs.3,50,000/- is to be paid by the insurer
and the remaining 30% i.e., Rs.1,50,000/-
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5512
& MFA NO. 102766 OF 2018
is to be paid by respondent No.3, since the
contributory negligence is apportioned in
the ratio of 70:30.
(v) Respondent - insurer is directed to deposit
the compensation amount before the
Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from
the date of award.
(vi) The order of apportionment, deposit and
release ordered by the Tribunal shall hold
good for the compensation awarded in this
appeal.
(vii) The Registry to send a copy of this
judgment forthwith to the Tribunal, along
with TCR.
(viii) The Registry to draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
VNP / CT-AN
