SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, JJ.
Nishaa W/o Nagesh Pai - Appellant
Versus
Ibrahim S/o Mohammadasab Binkadakatti – Respondent
M.F.A. Nos. 100778, 100394 of 2020
Decided On : 06-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vinay S. Koujalagi
For the Respondents: I.Y. Patil, N.R. Kuppelur

The proper assessment of negligence and income in fatal accident cases is essential for determining just compensation, reinforced by precedent in awarding future loss prospects.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Appeals for compensation enhancement and liability challenges - The deceased was a pillion rider in a motorcycle accident; there were conflicting statements on negligence. Tribunal assessed income at Rs.10,000/month, with future prospects added. Compensatory heads re-evaluated leading to total compensation set at Rs.14,21,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. (Paras 2, 6, 8, 9).

(B) Negligence - The Tribunal upheld the initial finding that the other rider was negligent, rejecting claims of contributory negligence from the insurer due to lack of evidence. (Paras 7(a), 8(a)).

Facts of the case:
The deceased, Nagesh, was a pillion rider involved in a motorcycle accident that led to his death, raising issues regarding contributory negligence and compensation claims.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal erred in the low award and interest rates, leading to a modified award of Rs.14,21,000/- with appropriate interest rates.

Issues: The primary issues included the assessment of negligence between the riders, the appropriate monthly income for compensation, and the validity of awarded amounts for various heads.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal's findings on negligence and compensation were largely correct, with adjustments for salaries and future prospects justified by precedent.

Result: Both appeals allowed in part, with total compensation modified to Rs.14,21,000/- and interest set at 6%.

-

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

1. MFA No.100778/2020 is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas MFA No.100394/2020 is filed by the appellant/Insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 03.10.2019 passed in MVC No.1003/2016 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad (for short ‘Tribunal’).

2. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that on 25.10.2016 at about 10.20 p.m., the deceased- Nagesh was proceeding as pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-22-S-4075. When the said motorcycle reached near M.T. Mill Cross, on Karwar road, at that time, rider of Active Honda motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-25-EM-8374 came from Girani Chawl towards Indi Pump in a very high speed and rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, the deceased- Nagesh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries in the Hospital while taking treatment on 26.10.2016.

-

3. Sri.N.R.Kuppelur, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer contends that the complaint was lodged by the brother of the deceased on 25.10.2016 and the said complaint indicates that deceased was riding the motorcycle. However, the Police colluding with the claimants, recorded further statement of the complainant and in the further statement it was recorded that the deceased was a pillion rider and one Sri.Khalander was a rider of the motorcycle and based on the further statement, FIR was registered, investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed against the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-25-EM-8374 and saddled the liability on the appellant/insurance company. The filing of the charge sheet is at the instance of the claimants only to avoid the contributory negligence of the deceased as he was negligent in riding the motorcycle.

-

4. It is further submitted that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month which is required to be reassessed at Rs.8,750/- as per the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and also submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% is required to be reduced to 6% p.a. Thus, he seeks to allow the appeal filed by the insurance company by shifting liability on the deceased.

5. Sri. Vinay S. Koujalagi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal insofar as liability is concerned. It is submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in ignoring Ex.P-13 which indicates that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.14,000/- per month. Hence, he seeks to reassess the income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- per month and to allow the appeal filed by the claimants.

-

6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record as well as original records of the Tribunal, the point that would fall for consideration in the present appeal is, whether the award of compensation by the Tribunal is just and proper?

7. Answer to the above point would be in the ‘partly affirmative’ and ‘partly negative’ for the following reasons:

(a) The pleading and evidence on record indicate that on 25.10.2016, the brother of the deceased filed a complaint before the Hubballi North Traffic Police by alleging that his brother, deceased –Nagesh Pai was proceeding on his motorcycle and the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-22-S-4075 caused the accident. The compliant at Ex.P2 indicates that the deceased was rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-25-EM-8374. During the course of investigation, the Police recorded further statement of the complainant. The further statement indicates that the deceased Nagesh was a pillion rider and one Khalander was riding the motorcycle. Based on the further statement, the investigation was carried out and filed a charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-25-EM-8374. The copy of the FIR, complaint, further statement, crime detail form, MVI

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top