MFA/2969/2023 of THE BRANCH MANAGER Vs SMT GEETHA on 9 June 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

MFA.No.3870/2023 is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of one K.G. Pavan, whereas MFA.No.2969/2023 is by the Insurer questioning the liability fastened on it in the judgment and award dated 03.01.2023 passed in MVC No.1545/2018 by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal").

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that on 07.07.2018, at about 10.45 p.m., one K.G. Pavan, along with his friend, Harshendra, was proceeding

HC-KAR

towards Kandali Village on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-13-EJ-4828. When they reached a place known as Byrapura on the Hassan–Mangalore Road, a truck bearing registration No.KA-46-3202 was stationed in the middle of the road without any signal, indicator, or warning signs. As a consequence, the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle, dashed against the rear portion of the said truck and sustained grievous injuries. Despite medical treatment, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Following the accident, FIR came to be registered and thereafter, charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the offending truck. As such, the legal representatives of the deceased, K.G. Pavan, instituted a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation on account of his untimely death.

3. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.17,34,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. Having recorded a finding that the driver of the offending truck was not holding a valid and

HC-KAR

effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal directed the insurer to satisfy the award in the first instance and thereafter, recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle, applying the principle of "pay and recover".

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, both the insurer and the claimants are in appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shivanne Gowda for the insurance company and Smt.Kavitha H.C., learned counsel for the claimants.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, apart from urging other grounds, primarily contended that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the entire liability upon the driver of the offending truck, without attributing any negligence to the deceased-rider of the motorcycle. It was submitted that, even assuming that the truck was stationed in the middle of the road, the deceased, being the rider of the motorcycle, was under a corresponding duty to ride the vehicle with due care and caution. According to

HC-KAR

the learned counsel, the offending truck was equipped with reflectors indicating its presence on the road and, therefore, the deceased ought to have noticed the same and maintained a safe distance so as to avoid the accident.

7. He further contended that the Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the material evidence on record while determining the issue of negligence and ought to have held that the deceased had substantially contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Learned counsel also submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is excessive and disproportionate to the evidence available on record. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the appeal filed by the insurer.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants, supported the impugned judgment and contended that the Tribunal, upon meticulous appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has recorded a well-reasoned finding. He submitted that the Tribunal, on consideration of the First Information Report (Ex.P1), Spot Mahazar (Ex.P3) and other material documents, has rightly come to the conclusion

HC-KAR

that the offending truck was parked in the middle of the road without any signal, indicator, or warning signs and that the accident occurred solely on account of the negligence of its driver. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability upon the driver of the offending vehicle and consequently, directing the insurer to satisfy the award.

9. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the quantum of compensation. According to her, the compensation awarded under various heads is inadequate. It was also submitted that the Tribunal has failed to properly consider the age, avocation and income of the deceased while computing the loss of dependency. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the insurer and for allowing the appeal filed by the claimants by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents available on record including the judgment and award.

HC-KAR

11. The occurrence of the accident in question and the existence of a valid insurance policy covering the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident are not in dispute. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the insurer is that the Tribunal ought to have attributed contributory negligence to the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle.

12. A perusal of Ex.P1 - FIR, Ex.P3 - Spot Mahazar and the material on record clearly disclose that the offending truck was stationed in the middle of the road and that the vehicle was parked without any signal, indicator, parking lights or other warning devices to alert the approaching vehicles. The accident admittedly occurred during the night hours at about 10.45 p.m. In such circumstances, it cannot reasonably be expected that the deceased, who was proceeding on the motorcycle from behind the truck, could have anticipated the presence of a heavy vehicle parked in the middle of the roadway without any warning signal.

13. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurer that the truck was fitted with reflectors also does not

HC-KAR

merit acceptance for two reasons. Firstly, because no material has been placed on record to establish the existence of such reflectors and neither the charge sheet nor any other contemporaneous document refers to the presence of reflectors on the offending vehicle. Secondly, the Insurance Company has not chosen to examine any witness to substantiate the said contention. In the absence of cogent evidence, a mere assertion regarding the existence of reflectors cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, having regard to the time and manner in which the accident occurred, the presence of reflectors by itself would not absolve the driver of the offending vehicle of his duty to ensure that the vehicle was parked in a right place with adequate warning signals.

14. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident occurred solely on account of the negligent act of the driver of the offending truck in parking the vehicle in the middle of the road without any signal or warning indication. Consequently, the contention urged by the learned counsel for

HC-KAR

the Insurer seeking attribution of contributory negligence to the deceased is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.

15. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, in the absence of satisfactory proof regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the notional monthly income at Rs.11,000/-. However, having regard to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for determining notional income in motor accident cases, the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.12,500/- for the accident of the year 2018.

16. The deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident. As such, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased would be '18' and future prospects at 40% require to be added to the notional income. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income is liable to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Thus, the income of the deceased would be Rs.8,750/- per month (Rs.12,500 + 40% - 50%). Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,90,000/- (Rs.8,750 x 12 x 18) under the head of 'Loss of Dependency'.

HC-KAR

17. The claimants, being the dependants and legal representatives of the deceased, each of them are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium i.e., in all, Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- × 3) under the said head.

18. Further, under the conventional heads, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.33,000/-.

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

1. Loss of Dependency 18,90,000

2. Loss of Consortium 1,20,000

3. Conventional Heads 33,000 Total 20,43,000

20. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.20,43,000/- as against Rs.17,34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

HC-KAR

21. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount, as modified by this Court, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and shall thereafter recover the same from the insured as per the judgment of the Tribunal.

22. The apportionment of compensation shall be in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal.

23. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

24. Accordingly, MFA. No.3870/2023 filed by the claimants is allowed in part and MFA.No.2969/2023 filed by the Insurer is dismissed. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG/PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37