PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K v. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2597/2021 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4977/2021 (MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5036/2021 (MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6435/2021 (MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6436/2021 (MV-D) MFA NO.2597/2021: BETWEEN: SMT. T MUNEMMA W/O LATE T KANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT NO.76, II MAIN, S V LAYOUT NEAR DAFFODILS ENGLISH SCHOOL SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094 PRESENTLY R/AT POTHALAPATTU VILLAGE AND POST, JANAPA VEEDI CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH – 517 124 …APPELLANT (BY SRI H MALATESH,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K VENKATESHWARAIAH S/O KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BANDE PALYA DEVARAYAPATNA POST TUMKUR – 572 101 (OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG NO.KA-31-5161) 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. JAYADEVA COMPLEX B H ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 101 Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 3. SMT T LALITHA W/O LATE T SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4. MR VIKAS S/O LATE T SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 5. MISS YASHASWINI D/O LATE T SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R3 TO R5 ARE R/AT NO.76, II MAIN, S V LAYOUT NEAR DAFFODILS ENGLISH SCHOOL SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI KUMARA K G, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5; APPEAL AGAINST R1 ABATED V/ORDER DATED 04.09.2024) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1911/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. MFA NO.4977/2021: BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., TUMKUR BRANCH OFFICE THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH FLOOR KRISHIBHAVAN N R ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER … APPELLANT (BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T LALITHA W/O LATE T SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 2. MASTER VIKAS S/O LATE T SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 3. MISS YASHASWINI D/O LATE T SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 4. T MUNEMMA W/O LATE T KANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT NO.76, II MAIN S V LAYOUT, NEAR DAFFODAILS ENGLISH SCHOOL, SANJAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 094 R4 ALSO R/AT NO.1-122, JANAPA VEEDI PUTHALAPATTU, CHITTOOR ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 124 5. K VENKATESHWARAIAH S/O KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT BANDEPALYA DEVARAYAPATNA POST, TUMKUR (OWNER LORRY NO.KA-31-5161) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KUMARA K G, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI H.MALATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; APPEAL AGAINST R5 ABATED V/ORDER DATED 04.09.2024) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1911/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-4 AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.70,03,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. MFA NO.5036/2021: BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., TUMKUR BRANCH OFFICE THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH FLOOR KRISHIBHAVAN N R ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 AND: 1. T RAMYA W/O. LATE T. BHANU PRASAD AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 2. MASTER. T. VEDA VARSHITHA S/O. LATE T. BHANU PRASAD AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN 3. T. SULOCHANA W/O. LATE T. GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT NO. 6,KODIGEHALLI YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 092 R3 IS ALSO R/AT C/O ADDRESS IS AT NO.8, 6TH CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT NEAR TATA NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 092 R1 TO R3 ARE NATIVES OF NO.1-222/A PUTHALAPATT, JANAPA VEEDHI PUTHALAPATTU, CHITTOR ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 124 4. K. VENKATESHWARAIAH S/O. KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT BANDEPALYA DEVARAYAPATNA POST TUMKUR (OWNER LORRY NO.KA-31-5161) 5. T. LALITHA W/O. LATE. T. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.76, II MAIN S V LAYOUT, NEAR DAFFODILS ENGLISH SCHOOL SANJAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 094 6. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEX P. KALINGA RAO ROAD - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 MISSION ROAD BANGALORE – 560 027 …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI.KUMARA K G, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3; SMT.HARINI SHIVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R5 SERVED; APPEAL AGAINST R4 ABATED V/ORDER DATED 04.09.2024) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1978/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.42,23,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. BENGALURU CAUSES, SCCH-4, SMALL MFA NO.6435/2021: BETWEEN: 1. LALITHA T SHANKAR W/O LATE T SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. VIKAS T SHANKAR W/O LATE T SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 3. YASHASWINI T S W/O LATE T SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.76, II MAIN S V LAYOUT NEAR DAFFODILS ENGLISH SCHOOL SANJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 094 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI KUMARA K G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K VENKATESHWARAIAH S/O KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BANDEPALYA, DEVARAYAPATNA POST TUMKURU - 572 101 (OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG NO.KA-31-5161) 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. JAYADEVA COMPLEX, B H ROAD - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 TUMKUR - 572 101 REGIONAL OFFICE SITUATED AT NO.18 NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001 3. T MUNEMMA W/O LATE T KANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.1-122, JANAPA VEEDHI PUTHALAPATTU, CHITTOR ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 124 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI H.MALATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; APPEAL AGAINST R1 ABATED V/ORDER DATED 04.09.2024) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1911/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-4), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. MFA NO.6436/2021: BETWEEN: 1. T RAMYA W/O. LATE T. BHANU PRASAD AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 2. MASTER T. VEDA VARSHITH S/O. LATE T. BHANU PRASAD AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 6,KODIGEHALLI YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 092 3. T. SULOCHANA W/O. LATE T. GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.6, KODIGEHALLI YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 092 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI KUMARA K G, ADVOCATE) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 AND: 1. K VENKATESHWARAIAH S/O KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BANDEPALYA, DEVARAYAPATNA POST TUMKURU - 572 101 (OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG NO.KA-31-5161) 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. JAYADEVA COMPLEX, B H ROAD TUMKUR - 572 101 REGIONAL OFFICE SITUATED AT NO.18 NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001 3. T LALITHA W/O LATE T SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.76, II MAIN, S V LAYOUT NEAR DAFFODILS ENGLISH SCHOOL SANJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 094 4. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEX P KALINGA RAO ROAD MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT.HARINI SHIVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R3 SERVED; APPEAL AGAINST R1 ABATED V/ORDER DATED 04.09.2024) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1978/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-4), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) These appeals arise out of the common judgment and award in M.V.C.No.1911/2015 and M.V.C.No.1978/2015 passed by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bangalore. The particulars of the appeals and the parties are set out in the tabular form: Sl. No. MVC No. Claimant MFA Nos. 1 1911/2015 T.Lalitha & ors. 2597/2021 2 1911/2015 T.Lalitha & ors. 4977/2021 3 1911/2015 T.Lalitha & ors. 6435/2021 4 1978/2015 T.Ramya & Ors. 5036/2021 5 1978/2015 T.Ramya & ors. 6436/2021 Appeals preferred by Munemma/ claimant No.4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. T.Lalitha & Ors. United India Insurance Co. ltd. T.Ramya & ors. 2. On 10.02.2015 at 4.00 a.m. T.Bhanu Prasad and T.Shankar were proceeding in Toyoto Qualis bearing Registration No.KA-04-MH-5499. The car was being driven by T.Shankar. When that was proceeding near panchayat office, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 Narasipura village, Somapura Hobli, car hit the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-31-5161 which was parked. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident, driver T.Shankar died instantaneously and T.Bhanu Prasad succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. 3. Claimant Nos.1 to 3 in M.V.C.No.1911/2015 are the wife and children, claimant No.4 in the said petition is the mother of T.Shankar. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in M.V.C.No.1911/2015 are the registered owner and the insurer of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-31-5161. 4. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 in M.V.C.No.1978/2015 are the wife and son and claimant No.3 in the said case is the mother of the deceased T.Bhanu Prasad. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are registered owner and the insurer of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-31-5161. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the registered owner and insurer of the car bearing Registration No.KA-04-MH-5499. 5. Both claim petitions were filed against the respondents alleging that the car was being driven by T.Shankar by following traffic rules. But the driver of the lorry - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 had parked the lorry on the road without displaying the parking light. Therefore the accident and the death of T.Shankar and T.Bhanu Prasad occurred. They further contended that the deceased were sole bread winners of their respective families and due to their death, they have suffered damages and the respondents are liable to compensate the said damages. 6. In M.V.C.No.1911/2015 the claimants sought compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- and in M.V.C.No.1978/2015 the claimants sought compensation of Rs.1,53,00,000/-. 7. It is to be noted that the car in question was owned by deceased T.Shankar and on his death, his wife T.Lalitha who was claimant No.1 in M.V.C.No.1911/2015 succeeded to the said property. Therefore as owner of car in question she was shown as respondent No.3 and insurer of the said car was shown as respondent No.4 in M.V.C.No.1978/2015, whereas they were not arrayed as parties in claim petition M.V.C.No.1911/2015. 8. Registered owners of both the vehicles did not contest the petitions. Whereas, respondent No.2 in M.V.C.No.1978/2015 and M.V.C.No.1911/2015 contested the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 petition denying actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and respondent No.4 in M.V.C.No.1978/2015 contested the petition denying actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car. 9. Insurer of the lorry contended that lorry was parked by complying all road rules and the deceased himself was rash and negligent in driving the car and hit the vehicle. Therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation. 10. The defence of insurer of the car was that the driver of the lorry was solely responsible for the accident. Further both insurers disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased and their liability to pay the compensation. 11. The Tribunal consolidated both M.V.C.No.1911/2015 and M.V.C.No.1978/2015 and recorded common evidence. On behalf of the claimants, claimant No.1 in M.V.C.No.1911/2015 was examined as PW.1 and claimant No.1 in M.V.C.No.1978/2015 was examined as PW.2. To prove the income of the deceased T.Shankar, Chartered Accountant was examined as PW.3. On behalf of the claimants, Exs.P1 to P43 were marked. Insurer of the lorry i.e. United India Insurance - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 Company Limited examined the driver of the lorry as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1. Other parties did not adduce any evidence. 12. The Tribunal on hearing the parties and on examining the materials on record held that the driver of the lorry and deceased T.Shankar i.e. driver of the car contributed negligence at the rate of 90% and 10% respectively in occurrence of the accident. Further the Tribunal on considering the evidence on record awarded compensation of Rs.70,03,000/- to the claimants in M.V.C.No.1911/2015 and Rs.42,23,000/- in M.V.C.No.1978/2015 with interest at 6% p.a. Liability was apportioned to the insurer of the lorry and car in accordance with the ratio of contributory negligence of respective drivers. 13. In M.V.C.No.1911/2015 apportionment of the compensation to claimant Nos.1 to 4 was in the ratio of 55%, 20%, 20% and 5% respectively. Mother of the deceased T.Shankar has challenged the said award in M.F.A.No.2597/2021 questioning the adequacy of the apportionment made to her share. In M.F.A.No.4977/2021 insurer of the lorry has challenged the finding of negligence and quantum in M.V.C.No.1911/2015. Claimant Nos.1 to 3 in - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 M.V.C.No.1911/2015 questioning the adequacy of the compensation awarded have preferred M.F.A.No.6435/2021. 14. Challenging the findings of the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.1978/2015 regarding quantum and negligence, Insurer of the lorry has preferred M.F.A.No.5036/2021. Challenging the adequacy of compensation awarded to the claimants in M.V.C.No.1978/2015, the claimants have preferred M.F.A.No.6436/2021. Submissions of Sri Janardhan Reddy, learned Counsel for the United India Insurance Company Ltd./Appellant in M.F.A.No.4977/2021 and M.F.A.No.5036/2021: 15. Sketch of the scene of accident shows that the lorry was parked on the lay area following all required safety rules. Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report shows that the driver of the car was in high speed, rash and negligent and he was solely responsible for the accident. Quantum of compensation awarded in both cases is on higher side. Submissions of Sri Kumara K.G., learned Counsel for claimant Nos.1 to 3 in M.V.C.No.1911/2015 and claimant Nos.1 to 3 in M.V.C.No.1978/2015: 16. The defence of the insurer of the lorry was inconsistent. Initially it was contended that the lorry was in - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 motion and T.Shankar driver of the car in rash and negligent manner caused the accident. The said defence was contrary to the evidence of RW.1. On investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the lorry. The evidence on record clearly shows that there was culpable negligence on the part of driver of the lorry in parking the lorry without parking indicator light. Therefore the Tribunal was in error in fastening 10% contributory negligence to the car and 90% to the Insurer of lorry. The compensation awarded to the legal representatives of Shankar in M.V.C.No.1911/2015 is on the lower side and same needs to be enhanced. Considering the age of claimant No.4, whatever compensation apportioned to her is just and sufficient. The compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.1978/2015 for the death of Bhanu Prasad is also on the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced. Submissions of Sri H.Malatesh, learned Counsel for claimant No.4 in M.V.C.No.1911/2015: 17. Admittedly, claimant No.4 is the mother of the deceased T.Shankar. At the time of death of T.Shankar, she was aged 75 years. She had equal share in the estate of her son along with his other legal heirs. Therefore compensation - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 apportioned to her is totally inadequate and the same needs to be corrected. Submissions of Smt.Harini Shivanand, learned Counsel for the Insurer of the car bearing Registration No.KA-04-MH-5499: 18. On investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the lorry and not against the driver of the car. Accepting the finding of the Tribunal, insurer of the car has deposited 10% of the compensation awarded. Therefore, there are no grounds to reverse the said findings. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal shall be maintained and the compensation awarded in both the cases is just and proper. 19. On hearing the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and examining the materials on record, the following questions arise for consideration of this Court: (i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that accident in question between Toyota Qualis bearing Registration No.KA-04-MH-5499 and the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-31-5161 occurred due to contributory negligence of drivers of the car and lorry at the ratio of 10% and 90% is sustainable? - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 (ii) (iii) Whether the compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.1911/2015 is just and fair one? Whether the Tribunal was justified in apportioning only 5% of the compensation to claimant No.4 in M.V.C.No.1911/2015? (iv) Whether the compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.1978/2015 is just and fair one? Reg. Point No.1 Negligence: Analysis 20. Parties did not dispute that on 10.02.2015 at 4.00 a.m. T.Shankar was driving Toyota Qualis car bearing Registration No.KA-04-MH-5499 and T.Bhanu Prasad was inmate of the car. It was not disputed that when they were proceeding near Narasipura village opposite to panchayat office car hit lorry bearing Registration No.KA-31-5161 from hind side. It is also not disputed that both T.Shankar and T.Bhanu Prasad succumbed to the injuries suffered in the said accident. It is also not disputed that the claimants in both the cases claimed that the driver of the lorry had parked the said lorry negligently on the road without displaying the parking lights and T.Shankar was unable to notice the lorry and hit the same - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 from the hind side. It was claimed that the driver of the lorry was solely responsible for the accident. To substantiate their claim, they relied on Exs.P1 to P5 and P8 first information report, complaint, spot sketch, spot mahazar, IMV report and the charge sheet. 21. It is also not disputed that on the complaint/Ex.P2 filed by one Kempanna, Dobbespet police registered first information report in Crime No.37/2015 against the driver of the lorry. On investigation, charge sheet as per Ex.P8 was filed against the driver of the lorry for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC read with Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’). 22. It is settled principle of law that the proceedings under Section 166 of the MV Act are summary in nature. The claimants had to prove their case by the degree of preponderance of probability. They do not have the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in the criminal cases. IMV report/Ex.P5 and sketch of the scene of offence/Ex.P3 show that the lorry was parked on the road. Though it was contended that the lorry was parked in lay-by, sketch does not show any such lay-by, it only shows that the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 road on that spot was little broader. Though the lorry was on the left side, it was on the road. Admittedly, the accident has taken place at 4.00 a.m. Ex.P3 does not indicate that there were any street lights or any other source of light. 23. Driver of the lorry though claimed that he filed the complaint regarding the accident before the police, but admits in his cross-examination that he has not challenged the charge sheet. When Ex.P3 spot sketch was confronted to him, he was not able to show any parking slot or lay area in the said document. He admitted that as per the spot sketch, he had sufficient space on the left side of the parked lorry. In the cross-examination of RW.1 though he admitted that he had switched on the parking lights of the lorry, except his interested evidence, there was nothing to show that he had displayed the parking lights. Though such was the position, if the driver of the car had also exercised some due diligence, the accident could have been avoided. Motor vehicle Inspector’s report shows that there was major damages to the car also. That shows that car was also in high speed. PWs.1 and 2 were not eyewitnesses to the incident. Except them no other witnesses were examined. Thus, the Tribunal on considering all such - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 aspects has rightly fastened the negligence to the driver of the lorry and car at the rate of 90% and 10% each. There is no ground to interfere with the said finding. Reg. Point Nos.2 and 3 quantum of compensation in MVC No.1911/2025 and apportionment of compensation to claimant No.4. 24. In this case, the claimants contended that deceased T.Shankar was the proprietor of Vikas International and he was carrying on the business of Granites. It was contended that he was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month which was disputed by the other side. To prove the income of the deceased, the claimants relied on the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and Income Tax Returns of the deceased. The claimants also relied on Ex.P17/Income Tax Returns for the year 2014-2015. The Tribunal relying on the evidences of PWs.1 and 3, the aforesaid documents and VAT Registration Certificate relating to the deceased, accepted the contention of the claimants that T.Shankar was dealing in Granites under the Proprietary Concern, Vikas International. In view of the evidence on record, there is no fault in the said finding. However the Tribunal, in assessing the income of the deceased, relied on the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 which was submitted subsequent to the death of T.Shankar. As per the said document, his annual income was Rs.6,62,916/-. Since the same was submitted subsequent to the accident, there is chance of inflation. Therefore, it is not safe to rely on the same. 25. Ex.P39 is the Income Tax Returns submitted by the deceased himself soon before his death for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and that can be relied. As per the said document his annual income from his business and commission/agency was Rs.5,84,478/- and income from other sources namely i.e. Bank interest at Rs.14,503/-. Thus, his total income was Rs.5,99,823/-. That can be rounded to Rs.6,00,000/-. 26. Having regard to the nature of the employment of T.Shankar, his age of 54 years and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi1, 10% of his income has to be granted towards future prospects. Therefore, his annual income would be Rs.6,60,000/- (Rs.6,00,000/- + Rs.60,000/-). 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 27. While assessing the deceased income, the income received from the deceased towards rental income is not included as the same is not lost on account of his death. It is also material to note that PW.1 has admitted that she is receiving the rent even after the death of the victim. As per the Finance Act, 2015, the tax payable for Rs.6,60,000/- is Rs.57,000/-. Therefore, his available income would be Rs.6,03,000/- (Rs.6,60,000/- (-) Rs.57,000/-). 28. As the deceased had four dependants, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Thus his contribution to his family would be Rs.4,52,250/- (Rs.6,03,000 x 3/4). Applicable multiplier is '11'. Therefore, compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency is Rs.49,74,750/- (Rs.4,52,250/- x 11). 29. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram3 case, the
Decision
O R D E R dismissed. (ii) M.F.A.No.2597/2021, M.F.A.No.4977/2021 & M.F.A.No.5036/2021 are partly allowed. [ (iii) Award in M.V.C.No.1911/2015 is modified as follows: (a) The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.46,65,375/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. (b) Claimant Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to compensation amount in the ratio of 50%:20%:20%:10% respectively. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:10347-DB MFA No.2597/2021 C/W MFA No.4977/2021 MFA No.5036/2021 MFA No.6435/2021 MFA No.6436/2021 (iv) Award in M.V.C.No.1978/2015 is modified as follows: (a) The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.37,20,200/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. (b) The award of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment is maintained. (v) Further, the award of the Tribunal in both cases with regard to the apportionment of liability and the contributory negligence is confirmed. (vi) Respondent No.2 in M.V.C.No.1911/2015 and respondent Nos.2 and 4 in M.V.C.No.1978/2015 shall deposit the compensation amount on adjusting the amount already deposited, if any, before the Tribunal at the ratio of 90% and 10% respectively. (viii) The amount in deposit and the trial Court records shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE KSR,VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40