[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shobha J S vs Eshwarappa on 13 March, 2026
-1-
MFA No. 6492 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6492 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SHOBHA J S
W/O LATE DAYANANDA M.S.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
2. KUSHANTH M.D.
S/O LATE DAYANANDA M.S.
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS
THE 2ND APPELLANT IS MINOR
REP. BY 1ST APPELLANT MOTHER
SHOBHA AS NATURAL GUARDIAN
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF
MATTIGATTA, NONAVINAKERE HOBLI,
NOW R/AT CHOLAPURA VILLAGE,
HEBBUR HOBLI,
TUMKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR M, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.AJAY J N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ESHWARAPPA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O NO.99, HADIKERE,
TARIKERE TALUK - 577 228
4TH FLOOR, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
2. THE MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OFFICE AT NO.186/7,
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX,
WILSON GARDEN, 1ST CROSS,
HOSURE MAIN ROAD,
-2-
MFA No. 6492 of 2023
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.S. LINGARAJ.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.
392/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 04.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the MV Act' for short) by
the claimant to set aside the 20% of negligence on the
deceased in MVC No.392/2020, by judgment and award
dated 30.06.2022 on the file of the VI Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as
'the Tribunal' for short).
2. The appellants herein are the claimants before
the Tribunal and Respondent No.1 is the Insurance
Company.
3. The petitioners, being the legal representatives
of the deceased Dayananda, have filed the claim petition
under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- with interest from the date of the accident
till realization.
4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are
as follows:-
On 30.04.2020 at about 1.45 p.m., while the
deceased Dayananda was riding a motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-44-J-2707 near Ganganaghatta Gate,
Hunasegatte Village, Nonavinakere, a Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-66-M-0527, driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner, caused an accident resulting in the
death of Dayananda on the spot. Hence, the petitioners
have sought compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.
5. After service of notice, respondent No.1
remained absent and was placed ex parte. The respondent
No.2-Insurance Company filed its statement of objections
contending that the compensation claimed is exorbitant
and has no nexus with the actual loss suffered by the
claimants and further contended that the death of the
deceased Dayananda occurred due to his own contributory
negligence and therefore, prayed for rejection of the
petition.
6. Based on the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal framed issues and allowed the claim
petition with cost and held 20% contributory negligence on
the part of the deceased and held that the claimants are
entitled for 80% of total compensation at Rs.15,48,736/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization from respondent No.2-Insurance
Company.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant
would contend that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal has erred in
assessing the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.13,203/- though the accident occurred in the year 2020
and the claim petition at Column No.6 discloses that the
deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and the
reliance placed on Ex.P10 - Pass book of the deceased for
determining the income is unsustainable in law. The
Tribunal has further committed an error in not awarding
compensation towards future prospects by assigning
incorrect reasons, whereas as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 30% is required to be
added towards future prospects. It is also contended by
him that the Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Others
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and reiterated by the
Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.1100/2019 &
connected matters disposed of on 12.06.2019 in awarding
compensation towards 'loss of consortium'. The Tribunal
has also awarded lesser compensation under the head of
'loss of love and affection'. Further, the Tribunal has erred
in fixing 20% contributory negligence on the deceased
without properly appreciating the documents produced by
the claimants and prayed to fasten entire liability on the
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
for the appellants has placed reliance on the following
judgments:-
• Jiju Kuruvila and others v. Kunjujamma
Mohan and others and connected matters
reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166; and
• Sunita and others v. Vinod Singh and
others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 586.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either
side.
10. Upon re-appreciation of the material placed on
record and the contentions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, this Court finds no infirmity in the
finding of the Tribunal in attributing 20% contributory
negligence to the deceased. The evidence on record
indicates that the deceased was riding the motorcycle on
the wrong side of the road at the time of the accident and
hence, contributed to the occurrence of the accident. In
such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in
apportioning negligence to the extent of 20% on the part
of the deceased. Hence, the said finding does not warrants
interference by this Court.
11. However, with regard to the quantum of
compensation, this Court finds that the Tribunal has
committed an error in not adding future prospects to the
income of the deceased. The Tribunal has rightly assessed
the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,203/- and
age as 42 years at the time of accident based on the
material available on record. As the deceased was aged
about 42 years at the time of the accident, it is just and
appropriate to take multiplier as '14'. As the deceased was
engaged in a stable occupation, the claimants are entitled
to 30% addition towards future prospects in terms of the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay
Sethi's case (supra).
12. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is
reassessed as under:-
Rs.13,203/- + 30% x 12 x 14 x 2/3 = Rs.19,22,256/-.
13. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of love and affection' to the
appellants, which is on the lower side. Hence, a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each is awarded. Therefore, the
appellants/claimants are entitled for a sum of
Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 2) under the head 'loss of
consortium' as per the law laid down in Magma case
supra.
14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/-
towards 'funeral expenses'. Hence, the same are just and
reasonable.
15. Thus, the total compensation re-determined by
this Court under various heads are as follows:
1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 19,22,256/-
2. Loss of consortium : Rs. 80,000/-
3. Funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000/-
4. Loss of estate : Rs. 15,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 20,32,256/-
16. After deducting 20% towards contributory
negligence, the claimants are entitled to 80% of
Rs.20,32,256/-, which comes to Rs.16,25,805/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced
compensation from the date of filing of the petition till
realization.
17. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in
MVC.No.392/2020, dated 30.06.2022, passed by
the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, at
Tumakuru is modified;
iii) The appellants - claimants are entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.20,32,256/-, out of which,
- 10 -
80% i.e., Rs.16,25,805/- shall be payable after
deducting 20% towards contributory negligence
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
on the enhanced compensation from the date of
filing of the petition till realization;
iv) The finding of the Tribunal fastening 20%
contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased is hereby confirmed.
v) The compensation amount along with accrued
interest if any, shall be deposited by the
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, within a
period of six weeks from the date of filing of the
petition till realization and recover the same from
the owner of the offending vehicle;
vi) Apportionment and disbursement of the
compensation amount shall be as per the
impugned Award of the Tribunal.
vii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy
of the judgment passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
viii) No order as to costs.
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
MH/-
