Sri. Muniyappa v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance. Co. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6409 OF 2022(MV-D) BETWEEN:

1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶2SMT. THIMMAKKA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NASHIKUNTEHOSUR KANGANAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK PIN-560 101 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE. CO.LTD., 6TH FLOOR, NEAR SUJATHA THEATRE GOLDEN HEIGHTS BUILDING RAJAJINAGARA BENGALURU-560 008 REP. BY ITS MANAGER

¶2SRI SHANAWAZ BAIG S/O SADIQ BAIG by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42178 MFA(No.(6409(of(2022 CNR:(KAHC010421212022 R/AT,POTHERENAHALLI,VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR,TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA,DISTRICT, PIN-561,208,

3., SRI,SRINIVASA,MURTHY,T,V, S/O,VENKATACHALAPATHY, R/AT,NO.374,,KAUSHUBHA, TH8 ,MAIN, NEAR,AVALAHALLI,BDA,PARK, RDBSK,3 ,STAGE, BENGALURU-560,085, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,HOLEBASAPPA,C,BETSUR,,ADVOCATE), THIS, MFA, IS, FILED, U/S, 173(1), OF, MV, ACT,, AGAINST, THEJUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DT.02.03.2022, IN, MVC, NO.1397/2020,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,XVIII,ADDITIONAL,JDUGE,, COURT,OF,SMALL,CAUSES,,MEMBER,,MACT,,BENGALURU,CITY,, (SCCH-4),, PARTLY, ALLOWING, THE, CLAIM, PETITION, FOR, COMPENSATION, AND, SEEKING, ENHANCEMENT, OF, COMPENSATION., , THIS, APPEAL,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,RAJESH,RAI,K ORAL(JUDGMENT

¶1The,appeal,is,filed,seeking,enhancement,of,compensation, awarded, by, the, Tribunal, vide, judgment, and, award, dated,

02.03.2022,in,MVC,No.1397/2020.,,

¶2It is not in dispute that as a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13.02.2020, Devaraj, a 38 year old died.

¶3The factual matrix of the case is that, on 13.02.2020 at about p.m., Devaraj riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-43-J-7708 along with two pillion riders namely Chandru and Nagesh, crossed Gowribidanuru - Doddaballapura road and in front of Lakshminarasimhaswamy Kalyana Mantapa stopped the motorcycle at U-turn to proceed towards Gunjanuru and at that time, a car bearing registration No.KA04-ML-936 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in a high speed and while attempting to overtake another vehicle, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of which, the rider of the motorcycle and the pillion riders sustained grievous injuries and the rider of the motorcycle succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, the legal representatives of deceased - rider of the motorcycle filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the accidental death of Devaraj.

¶4The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence adduced before it, has come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle as well as deceased - rider of the motorcycle were responsible for the accident in the ratio of 30 : 70. The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to award the following sums as compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.)

¶1Loss of Dependency 9,13,500

¶2Loss of Consortium 40,000

¶3Funeral expenses 15,000

¶4Loss of future prospects 3,65,400

¶5Loss of love and affection 25,000

¶6Transport of dead body 5,000 Total 13,63,900

¶5Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

¶6Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal has erred in saddling 30% negligence on the part of

the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the deceased by placing reliance on Ex.P3 - mahazar along with the sketch and the evidence of PW.1, although the charge sheet has been laid against the driver of the car. He would further contend that the Tribunal has erred in awarding meager compensation under all the heads. Accordingly, he would pray for allowing of the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

¶7On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer would contend that the rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle with two pillion riders and without noticing the vehicles in the Highway, in a negligent manner tried to move on the otherside of the road through U-turn, as such, the accident had occurred. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in attributing 30% contributory negligence on the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the deceased. He would also contend that the Tribunal has, however, erred in awarding exorbitant compensation under all the heads. Accordingly, he would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

¶8I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

¶9As could be gathered from records, the accident is not in dispute and the coverage of policy to the offending vehicle is also not in dispute. The Tribunal attributed 30% negligence on the rider of the motorcycle by placing reliance on Ex.P3 - mahazar along with the sketch and the evidence of PW.1. On careful perusal of Ex.P3, it is seen that the accident had occurred in the Highway where there is permitted U-turn and where the rider of the motorcycle stopped his motorcycle to take U-turn to move towards Gowribidanur and at that time, the driver of the offending car came from Gowribidanur side to move towards Doddaballapura i.e., from North to South on the extreme right side of the one-way road and dashed against the motorcycle. In such circumstances, upon re-appreciation of evidence of PW.1 and documents, particularly Ex.P3 - mahazar along with sketch and Ex.P4 - IMV report, I am of the considered view that the deceased - rider of the motorcycle had contributed 15% negligence to the occurrence of the accident. Accordingly, the ratio of contributory negligence attributed on the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle would be 15 : 85.

¶10In order to arrive at the loss of dependency, since there was no credible evidence to substantiate the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income by taking the notional income as fixed by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for an accident of the year 2020, would be Rs.14,500/-.

¶11Since the deceased was aged 38 years and was self-employed, 40% requires to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, which would result in the income to be Rs.20,300/-

¶12Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% requires to be deducted towards personal expenses, which makes his monthly income to be Rs.10,150/-. The income of the deceased for the purposes of determining the loss of dependency would thus be Rs.10,150/-.

¶13As the deceased was aged 38 years, a multiplier of '15' would have to be applied.

¶14Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,27,000/- (Rs.10,150 x 12 x 15) towards "loss of dependency".

¶15The claimants, being the parents, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards "loss of consortium" i.e., in all Rs.96,800/- and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the "conventional heads".

¶16Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.)

¶1Loss of Dependency 18,27,000

¶2Loss of Consortium 96,800

¶3Conventional Heads 36,300

Less: 15% contributory negligence 2,94,015 Total 16,66,085

¶17Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.16,66,085/-as against Rs.13,63,900/-

awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶18The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶19The apportionment of compensation amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23