- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 853/2019 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7629/2018 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 853/2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUMA W/O LATE MAHADEVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. SRI. SANTOSH S/O. LATE MAHADEVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, 3. SMT. SHANVI D/O. LATE MAHADEVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, 4. SRI. CHA MAHADEVAPPA S/O. CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 5. SMT. PUTTATAYAMMA W/O. CHINNA MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT MAHALINGAMMANAHUNDI VILLAGE, SOSLE HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 MYSORE DISTRICT-571 124 NOTE: APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1ST APPELLANT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B S VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SIDDEGOWDA S/O. SONNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, (D.L. NO. KA-0920030002417) 2. SRI. AMBARISH. C. C. S/O. SONNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH R/AT CHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALLYUR POST, BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 124. (OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER) 3. M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE NO.4/5/1 AND 3/2/M, 11TH MAIN,3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 061, BRANCH OFF AT NO. 36/D, 1ST FLOOR, MYSURU TRADE CENTRE, OPP. K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND, B. N. ROAD, MYSURU-570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LOKESH D K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.538/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, T.NARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 IN MFA NO. 7629/2018 BETWEEN: M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH ISSUANCE OFFICE AT NO.4/3/1 AND 3/2 M, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560061 REP BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-01 REP BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUMA W/O LATE MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. SRI. SANTOSH S/O MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 3. SMT. SHANAVI D/O LT MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS 4. SRI. CHA MAHADEVAPPA S/O CHENAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 5. SMT. PUTTATAYAMMA W/O CHA. MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT MADGARALINGAIHANAHUNDI VILLAGE, SOSALE HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571124 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 6. AMBARIAH C C S/O SANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT CHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALIYURU POST, BANNURU HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571124 NOTE: RESPONDENT NO.1 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS THE DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR HE IS NOT A PROPER AND NECESSARY PARTY. HENCE HE IS NOT MADE PARTY TO THIS APPEAL. NOTE: RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS HENCE THE NATURAL GUARDIAN IS R1 MOTHER FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 SRI. LOKESH D. K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R6 R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.538/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, T NARASIPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,90,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT AND ETC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) These appeals arise out of the award in MVC No.538/2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Tirumakudalu Narasipura (‘Tribunal’ for short). 2. The appellants in MFA No.853/2019 were claimant Nos.1 to 5 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 were respondent Nos.1 to 3 in MVC No.538/2016. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Trial Court. 3. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children and claimant Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of deceased Mahadevaswamy. On 24.4.2016 at about 7 pm., when Mahadevaswamy was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.KA.55.E.6116 near Jagajeevanagrama village on T.Narasipura - Madgaralingaiahnahundi main road, he met with an accident and died. Regarding the accident, one Ankappa filed complaint as per Ex.P1 against the driver of Tractor bearing No.KA-45-T-4785 and Trailer bearing No.KA-55-T-421 alleging that the driver of the said Tractor and Trailer drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, hit - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 Mahadevaswamy and caused his death. On investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the said vehicle. At the relevant time, respondent No.1 was allegedly the driver, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were the registered owner and insurer of the Tractor and Trailer. 4. Claimants filed MVC No.538/2016 against respondent Nos.1 to 3 claiming compensation of `32,45,000/- with interest at 18% pa., contending that the accident and death of Mahadevaswamy occurred due to respondent No.1 driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner. They contended that deceased was agriculturist and running a Brick Industry, earning `30,000/- pm., and they were depending on his income and due to his death, they have suffered financially and mentally. 5. Respondent No.1 did not file his written statement. Respondent No.2 filed his written statement denying the occurrence of accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer by its driver. He further contended that the vehicle was covered under the policy issued by respondent No.3 and liability, if any, is to be made good by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 contested the petition denying the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle in the accident, rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer by respondent No.1 leading to the accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased and its liability to pay compensation. 6. On behalf of the claimants, claimant No.4 was examined as PW.1, PW.2 was examined as eye-witness and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. The respondents did not lead any evidence. 7. The Tribunal on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and award held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in driving the Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos. KA-45-T- 4785/KA-55-T-421. The Tribunal notionally assessed the income of the deceased at `8,000/- p.m., treated the age of the deceased as 42, added 25% to the income of the deceased by way of future prospects, deducted 1/4th out of his income for his personal expenses, applied 14 multiplier and awarded total compensation of `13,90,000/- on different heads as follows: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 Sl. No Particulars Amount in (`) 1 Loss of dependency 12,60,000.00 2 Funeral expenses 15,000.00 3 Loss of love and affection 50,000.00 4 Loss of estate 15,000.00 5 Transportation of dead body 10,000.00 6 Loss of consortium 40,000.00 Total 13,90,000.00 The Tribunal held that the said compensation shall carry interest at 9% pa., and payable by respondent No.3/insurer. 8. Questioning the adequacy of the compensation awarded, the claimants have preferred MFA No.853/2019 and questioning the finding regarding involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident and quantum of compensation, the insurer has preferred MFA No.7629/2018. 9. Submissions of Sri D.Vijaykumar, learned counsel for the insurer: There was delay in filing the complaint and mahazar does not indicate involvement of insured vehicle. Though there is delay in filing the complaint, mahazar is allegedly drawn within a short span of time. The claimants did not produce the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report. The above facts show that the claimants in collusion with respondent Nos.1 and 2 have falsely planted the insured vehicle. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal regarding involvement of the insured Tractor and Trailer is liable to be set aside. Quantum of compensation awarded is excessive. 10. Submissions of Sri B.S.Vishwanath, learned counsel for the claimants: On conducting investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos. KA-45-T-4785/KA-55-T-421. The eye-witness to the accident was also examined. In the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, involvement of the vehicle was not at all questioned. Respondents did not adduce any evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the claimants. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that involvement of the vehicle was not proved. The evidence of PW.2 and Ex.P7/Tax paid receipt show that the deceased was running a Brick Industry. The income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The compensation awarded on the other heads is also on the lower side. 11. Considering the submissions of both side and examining the material on record, the points that arise for consideration are: i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that on 24.4.2016 at 7.00 pm., Mahadevaswamy met with an accident leading to his death due to rash and negligent driving of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos. KA-45-T-4785/KA-55-T- 421, is sustainable? ii. Whether the compensation awarded is just one? Analysis Reg. Point No.(i): 12. The respondents did not dispute that Mahadevaswamy met with the accident leading his death on 24.4.2016 at 7.00 pm., when he was riding his motor cycle bearing No.KA.55.E.6116 near Jagajeevanagrama village. The claimants contended that respondent No.1 /driver of the Tractor and Trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit Mahadevaswamy’s motor cycle causing his death. Respondent No.1/the driver of the Tractor and Trailer did not dispute the said fact. Respondent No.2 though filed written statement, did not dispute that respondent No.1 was the driver of the said vehicle. He neither entered the witness box nor cross-examined PWs.1 and 2 regarding the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the said Tractor and Trailer. 13. To prove their allegations claimants relied on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 filed Exs.P1 to P5 i.e., FIR and complaint, spot mahazar, spot sketch, inquest report, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 P.M.Report respectively and Ex.P10-the charge sheet. It is no doubt true that PW.1 was not the eye-witness, but PW.2 deposed that he witnessed the occurrence of the accident and actionable negligence of respondent No.1 in driving the Tractor and Trailer. 14. Registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet is not in dispute. Ex.P10 (charge sheet) shows that on investigation the jurisdictional police charge sheeted the driver of the Tractor and Trailer for the offences under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and 134A and B r/w 187 of IMV Act. Though before this Court the involvement of the vehicle is disputed very seriously, it is material to note that in the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 the involvement of the vehicle was not at all questioned. Regarding the contention that the claimant did not produce IMV Report, the charge sheet shows that Motor Vehicle Inspection was done and IMV inspector was cited in the charge sheet witness. 15. It is settled position of law that in the proceedings before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the MV Act, the degree of proof required is preponderance of probability and not degree of proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in a - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 Criminal Trial. By the evidence of PW.2 and the aforesaid documents, the claimants discharged their burden of proving the occurrence of the accident due to the actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.1. Then the burden shifted to the respondents to rebut the said evidence. The respondents did not lead any rebuttal evidence. As already noticed, respondent No.3 in the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 did not even deny the involvement of the Tractor and Trailer. Considering all such material, the Tribunal has rightly given a finding that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in driving the insured Tractor and Trailer. There are no grounds to interfere with the same. Reg. Point No.(ii): 16. Though the claimants contended that the deceased was agriculturist and running Brick Industry, nothing was produced to show that he was owning any land or the Brick Industry. Ex.P7 on which learned counsel for the claimants relied to claim that deceased was running a Brick Industry, is purported to be general receipt issued by the Zilla Panchayath, Mysuru, regarding supply of bricks worth of `1,000/- by Mahadevaswamy. The said document does not bear signature - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 of any officer. No person was examined to prove the said document. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in disbelieving the said document and assessing the income notionally. 17. The Tribunal assessed the income at `8,000/- pm. The driving licence of the deceased/Ex.P11 shows that the deceased was born on 13.5.1974. Therefore, as on the date of accident, he was aged 42 years and the applicable multiplier is 14. Considering his age, occupation, prevailing wage rates during the said period and the cost of living, notional income of `8,000/- assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side. It can be reasonably reassessed at `9,500/- pm. 18. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi1 it was held that for the age group of 40 to 50, who are self employed, 25% has to be added by way of future prospects. As per the judgment in the case of Sarala Verma (Smt) And Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another2 when the deceased had 4 to 6 dependents, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Therefore, the compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency is 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 2 (2009) SCC 121. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 [`9,500/- + `2,375/- (40%) = `11,875/- x ¾ = `8,906.25 rounded off to `8,906/- x12x14] `14,96,208/-. 19. In the judgment in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram3 it was held that even the parents and the children are entitled to compensation on the head of loss of consortium. In Pranay Sethi’s case it was held that compensation of `40,000/- on the head of loss of consortium with escalation at 10% has to be awarded and on conventional heads i.e., loss of estate and funeral expenses a sum of `15,000/- each with escalation at 10% has to be awarded. 20. In view of the above discussion, the just compensation payable is as follows: Sl. No Particulars Amount in (`) 1 Loss of dependency 14,96,208.00 2 Funeral expenses & transportation of dead body 16,500.00 3 Loss of estate 16,500.00 5 Loss of consortium 2,20,000.00 Total= 17,49,208.00 Rounded off to= 17,50,000.00 (-) awarded by the Tribunal= 13,90,000.00 Enhancement= 3,60,000.00 3 2018 (18) SCC 130 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 21. No special reason assigned by the Tribunal to award interest at 9% pa., on the compensation. Therefore, the compensation awarded shall carry interest at 6% pa. For the aforesaid reasons, both the appeals deserve to be allowed in part. 22. Hence, the following: ORDER i. MFA Nos.853/2019 and 7629/2018 are allowed in part; ii. The amount awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.538/2016 is modified as follows: a. The claimants are entitled to compensation of `17,50,000/- with interest thereon at 6% pa., from the date of petition till its realization; b. Respondent No.3 – insurer shall deposit the aforesaid compensation before the Tribunal on adjusting the amount already deposited, if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:3054-DB MFA No. 853/2019 C/W MFA No. 7629/2018 iii. Transmit the amount in deposit, if any, and the TCRs to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38