- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201651 OF 2021 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200450 OF 2021 (MV-I) IN MFA NO.201651/2021: BETWEEN: 1. RENUKA W/O BALAYYA @ BALARAJ SHRIRAM, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND COOLIE, 2. SUJATA D/O BALAYYA @ BALARAJ SHRIRAM, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND COOLIE, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DOBALE GALLI, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAMI AHMED S/O ABDUL RAHEEMSAB, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF EICHER VEHICLE BEARING ITS REG. NO. KA.56/0386, R/O NO. 18/232, KOLLIWAD, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585 330. Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 2. THE MANAGER LEGAL, SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., E/8, EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, (RAJASTHAN STATE)-302 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 21.01.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VII, AT VIJAYAPUR, IN MVC NO. 676/2016. IN MFA NO.200450/2021: BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGER LEGAL, M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., E/8, EPIP RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, (RAJASTAN STATE), PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY ITS, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE, BELEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OFF BHANNERUGHATTA ROAD, IIMB POST, BENGALURU-560 076. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 AND: 1. SMT. RENUKA W/O BALAYYA @ BALARAJ SHRIRAM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND COOLIE, 2. SMT SUJATA D/O BALAYYA @ BALARAJ SHRIRAM, AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND COOLIE, BOTH ARE R/O DOBALE GALLI, TALUKA AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA-586 101. 3. MR. SAMI AHMED S/O ABDUL RAHEEMSAB, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF EICHER NO.KA-56/0386, R/O NO. 18/232, KOLIWAD, TALUK HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585 330. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2; R3-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.676/2016 BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT VII, AT VIJAYAPURA. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.676/2016, dated 05.08.2020 by learned II- Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VII, Vijayapura, the petitioners and the respondent No.2-insurance company are before this Court in these appeals. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 21.11.2015, the deceased Kiran was riding a motorcycle bearing No.MH-13/BW-6035 with a friend as a pillion rider and opposite to Hotel Bandenawaz at Solapur, Eicher vehicle bearing No.KA-56/0386 came from opposite direction in high speed and negligent manner and by coming on the wrong side, it dashed to the motorcycle resulting in deceased Kiran suffering injuries and later succumbed to the injuries while taking treatment at Civil Hospital Solapur. It was contended that the deceased was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 aged 19 years and therefore, the petitioners being the mother and sister of the deceased are entitled for the compensation. The Solapur police had registered case and after investigation they had filed chargesheet against one Mohammad Mainuddin Fareedsab Shaikh. Obviously the case was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the pillion rider Raheman Mohammad Nadaf. 4. On service of notice, the respondent No.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed the written statement. 5. Respondent No.1 denied the petition averments, and the age, income and occupation of the deceased, and termed the compensation claimed as highly exorbitant and imaginary. 6. Inter-alia he contended that the deceased Kiran was riding the motorcycle under the influence of the alcohol and he had tried to overtake another vehicle and as such there was negligence on the part of the deceased Kiran. He contended that his vehicle was insured with the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 respondent No.2 and any liability may be fastened upon the respondent No.2 on account of the insurance cover. He also contended that the driver of the Eicher vehicle was having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 7. The respondent No.2-insurance company contended that there were violations of the terms and conditions of the policy and the driver of the Eicher vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It was contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and as such it sought for the dismissal of the petition. 8. On the basis of the said contentions, appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and the petitioner No.2 was examined as PW1 and the complainant examined as PW2. Ex.P1 to 6 were marked in evidence. The respondents examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and Ex.R1 to 4 were marked. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 9. After hearing the arguments by both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation on different heads as below; Loss of dependency Rs.7,56,000/- Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Loss of estate Rs.20,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.40,000/- 10. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are in appeal in MFA No.201651/2021 and the Insurance Company is in appeal in MFA No.200450/2021. 11. Heard the arguments by learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the cases. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit the FIR nowhere mention the name of the driver of the Eicher vehicle and the name of the driver has been implicated at a later point of time. He contends that the name of the driver as may be found in the chargesheet, which is at Ex.P5 would disclose as Mohammed Mainuddin Fareedsab Shaikh with his father's name as Fareedsab - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 Shaikh. He contends that name of the driver as may be found from the driving licence produced at Ex.R4 shows that he was Mohammed Mainuddin S/o Fareedsab. Therefore, there is a discrepancy in the name of the driver with reference to the driving license and the name found in the chargesheet and as such the driver has been implicated at a later stage. He further contends that the said driver who has been examined as RW2 is unable to explain the discrepancy with regard to his name as well as the date of birth as may be found from the Aadhar card produced at Ex.R3. Therefore, he contends that the implication of the name of the driver is with an ulterior motive of making unlawful gain and as such the liability of the insurance company be absolved. 12. He further contends, in reply to the submissions by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no need for enhancement of the compensation or any interference and with regard to impugned judgment. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the RW2 Mohammad Mainuddin has been examined at the instance of the respondent No.1 by summoning him and when such an explanation is offered by RW2 by tendering Ex.R3 and Ex.R4, it is not open to the respondent No.2 to contend that there exist any discrepancy. It is contended that RW2 himself has stated that he has faced the trial before the Criminal Court pursuant to chargesheet filed against him and when he owns the Aadhaar card at Ex.R4, showing his year of birth as 1966 and that there is an incorrect entry in the driving licence as his year of birth as 1958, it is not open to the insurance company to contend that the discrepancy still persist and that would inevitably show a false implication. It is contended that when the involvement of the vehicle owned by the respondent No.1 which is insured by the respondent No.2 is unequivocally shown to have been involved in the accident, it cannot be said that the driving licence which has been produced through the driver is incorrect and improper. Therefore, he - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 submits that the appeal by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed. 14. He further submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the notional income may be assessed properly by considering the future prospects. 15. The first aspect to be looked into by this Court is regarding the name of the driver. As noted supra, the Ex.R3 which is the Addhaar card show the name RW2 as Mohammed Moinuddin S/o Mohammad Fareedsab, his year of birth as 1966. The driving licence at Ex.R4 shows the name as Mohammed Mainuddin S/o Farook Sab with date of birth as 01.08.1958. When we examine the testimony of the RW2, he owns both these documents and says that he was the driver at the time of the accident. He also says that he has faced the charges before the Criminal Court. It is worth to note that in the cross examination of the RW2, there is nothing which has been brought out by the respondent No.2-insurance company which would discredit - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 his testimony. He denies that the person mentioned in the charge sheet is a different person than RW2. He admits that, he do not have any document to show that his father is shown as Faridsab @ Farook Sab. When there is no discrepancy in respect of the name of the petitioner, and when the testimony of the RW2 is not impeached by cross examination, it is not open to the insurance company to contend that the driver was falsely implicated. Moreover, when the driving licence has been produced by the RW2 and when his name finds place in the charge sheet and the charge sheet having not been shown to be incorrect, the appeal filed by the insurance company is devoid of any merits. It is pertinent to note that nothing is brought out by the insurance company on record as to how the investigating officer came to know about the name of the accused. It is also relevant to note that the complaint as well as the other papers does not show as to how the investigating officer had come to know about the name of the RW2 to be the driver of the vehicle. Under these - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 circumstances, the appeal filed by the insurance company is devoid of any merits and the same is liable to dismissed. 16. So far as the quantum of the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.7,000/-. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalath prescribe a notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month for the year 2015. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, they are acceptable as held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi,1 Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered at (Rs.8,000/- + 3,200/- = 11,200/-). Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.11,200/- x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.12,09,600/- by adopting a multiplier of 18 for the age of 19 years and deducting the personal expenses at 50%. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 17. In addition to it, the petitioners are also entitled for a sum of Rs.52,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head of funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head of loss of a estate which includes escalation of 10% at every three years as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 18. Under these circumstances, the compensation is re-assessed by this Court and the petitioners are entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below: 1. Loss of dependency Rs.12,09,600/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.52,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs.19,500/- /- 4. Funeral expenses Rs.19,500/- Total Less: awarded by Tribunal Enhancement Rs.13,00,600/- Rs.8,41,000/- Rs.4,59,600/- 19. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 ORDER (i) MFA No.200450/2021 is dismissed. (ii) MFA No.201651/2021 is allowed in part. (iii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. (iv) The appellants / claimants in MFA No.201651/2021 are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,59,600/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. (v) The appellant/Insurance company in MFA No.200450/2021 is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (vi) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775 MFA No. 201651 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021 (vii) The amount deposited before this Court in MFA.No.201651/2021 is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51 CT: AK