- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9104 OF 2017 (MV) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 11 OF 2019 (MV) IN MFA NO. 9104/2017 BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, KASTURI MANSION, M.G. ROAD, ABOVE CORPORATION BANK, TUMAKURU - 572 101 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER C K PARIMALA, REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BALAMMA, W/O. LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 2. RAMESHA, S/O. LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS 3. JAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 4. SUMA D/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS 5. BALAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 6. KAVYA D/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS 7. JADIYAPPA, S/O. LATE SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS 8. CHIKKAMMA W/O LATE KUNTAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY N.G MOTHER I.E RESPONDENT NO.1 AND RESPONDENT NO.6 AND 7 ARE ALSO MINORS REPRESENTED BY N.G. MOTHER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.5 ALL ARE RESIDENT OF TUPPADAKONA GOLLARAHATTI, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, NOW R/O NANDIHALLI, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 137 9. H. NAGARAJU, S/O. HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. GANJALAGUNTE VILLAGE, THARUR POST, SIRA TALUK - 572 137 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHU .R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8 R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1 R6 AND R7 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R5 R9 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.68/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 RS.20,57,800/- FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. IN MFA.CROB NO. 11/2019 BETWEEN: 1. BALAMMA, W/O. LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS I WIFE 2. RAMESHA, S/O. LATE SHIVANNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS 3. JAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE SHIVANNA NOW AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS 4. SUMA D/O LATE SHIVANNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS 5. BALAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 2ND WIFE 6. KAVYA D/O LATE SHIVANNA NOW AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS 7. JADIYAPPA, S/O. LATE SHIVANNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS 8. CHIKKAMMA W/O LATE KUNTAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS PETITIONER NO. 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 PETITIONER NO.1 AND PETITIONER NO.6 TO 7 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY N.G. MOTHER I.E., PETITIONER NO.5 ALL ARE R/A TUPPADAKONA GOLLARAHATTI, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, NOW R/O NANDIHALLI, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 137 ...CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H. NAGARAJU, S/O HONNAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A GANJALAGUNTE VILLAGE, THARUR VILLAGE, SIRA TALUK - 572 137 2. THE MANAGER THE NATIONAL INS CO. LTD., KASTURI MANSION, M.G. ROAD, ABOVE CORPORATION BANK, TUMKUR - 572 101 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2025) THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.9104/2017 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 R/W SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.68/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. APPEAL AND MFA CROB, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) The above appeal and cross objection are filed challenging the judgment and award in MVC No.68/2014 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Tumkur. 2. The appellant was respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 8 were claimant Nos.1 to 8 and respondent No.9 was respondent No.1 in MVC No.68/2014 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to according to the ranks before the Tribunal. 3. Claimant Nos.1 and 5 are the first and second wife. Claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of first wife and claimant Nos.6 & 7 are the children of second wife and claimant No.8 is the mother of the deceased-Shivanna. 4. Claimants filed MVC No.68/2014 contending that on 02.08.2012 at 12.00 noon when Shivanna was waiting near Sheshanahalli bus stop to proceed to his village, the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-06-EK-6133 rode the same in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 human life and hit Shivanna. It was contended that Shivanna suffered grievous injuries in the accident. First he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sira and from there to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bangalore and from the said Hospital he was brought back to Government Hospital, Sira. He died on 08.11.2012 at 3.30 p.m. when he was under treatment. At the time of accident, respondent Nos.1 & 2 were the registered owner and Insurer of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-06-EK-6133. 5. Claimants contended that the accident and death of Shivanna occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-06- EK-6133. They further contended that Shivanna was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and Sheep business and they were dependant on his income. They further contended that due to his death they have lost their bread winner and his emotional support. They claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondents. 6. Respondent No.1 did not contest the petition. Respondent No.2- the Insurer contested the petition denying the occurrence of the accident as alleged and involvement of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 the motorcycle insured by them. They disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased. The Insurer contended that in collusion with the Police Authorities delayed complaint and charge sheet were filed. Therefore, Insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 7. The Tribunal on recording the evidence and hearing the parties by the impugned award held that the accident and death of Shivanna occurred due to actionable negligence on part of the rider of motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-06- EK-6133. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 35 years, notionally assessed his income at Rs.7,000/- per month, added 50% to the same by way of future prospects, deducted 1/5th out of the said income for his personal expenses, applied '16' multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.16,12,800/- on the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.20,57,800/- on different heads as follows: Sl.No. Head Amount in Rs. 1 Loss of dependency 16,12,800.00 2 Loss to estate 10,000.00 3 Loss of love and affection 4,00,000.00 4 Conveyance expenses 10,000.00 5 Funeral expenses 25,000.00 Total 20,57,800.00 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 8. Questioning the findings of the Tribunal regarding the involvement of the insured vehicle and quantum of compensation, the Insurer has preferred the above appeal. The claimants have filed the above cross objection questioning the adequacy of the compensation awarded. 9. Sri L.Sreekanta Rao learned counsel submits that there was three days delay in filing the complaint, though PW2 was said to be the eye-witness, he did not file the complaint immediately. In the accident register extract the vehicle number was interpolated subsequently. The evidence of the claimants regarding the involvement of the vehicle was not acceptable. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence judiciously. The quantum of compensation awarded is also on the higher side. Future prospects considered by the Tribunal is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi1. As deceased had a bigamous marriage, two wives cannot be given consortium separately. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the claim petition against respondent No.2-the Insurer. 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 10. Sri.Raghu.R learned counsel for the claimants submits that PW2 is the eye-witness and complainant. On his complaint, police have filed charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle. Rider was not examined to prove the defence of the insurer. Respondent No.1 did not deny the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the vehicle. Therefore, evidence of the claimant was not rebutted. The income considered by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded are on the lower side. 11. On hearing both sides and examination of the material on record, the questions that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that accident and death of Shivanna occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the rider of motor cycle No.KA-06-EK-6133 is sustainable? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just one? - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 ANALYSIS Reg. Negligence and involvement of motorcycle: 12. The initial burden of proving the fact that on 02.08.2012 at 12.00 noon, the rider of motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-06-EK-6133 rode the same in rash and negligent manner near Sheshnahalli bus stop and caused death of Shivanna was on the claimants. The respondents also did not dispute that Shivanna suffered accidental injuries on 02.08.2012 at 12.00 noon near Sheshnahalli bus stop and when he was being treated in Government Hospital, Sira he succumbed to the injuries on 08.11.2012 at 3.30 p.m. Only the involvement of the said motorcycle was disputed. 13. To prove their contention claimants relied on Exs.P1 to P8 FIR, compliant, Spot Mahazar, Inquest mahazar, Post Mortem Report, IMV Report, Charge sheet and copy of statement of the deceased. PW2 was the complainant cum eyewitness. The above documents show that on PW-2's complaint, the police registered FIR Ex.P1 against the rider of motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-06-EK-6133 and on investigation filed charge sheet as per Ex.P7 against him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 Section 134(A)(B) r/w Section 187 of IMV Act. By such evidence, the burden of the claimant to prove the occurrence of accident involving the aforesaid vehicle stood discharged. Respondent No.2/the insurer did not lead any evidence to rebut the said evidence. Even the rider of the motorcycle was not examined. Except producing the MLC Register-Ex.R1 during the cross-examination of PW2 to confront his signature, no other evidence was produced. Even in Ex.R1 in the first page, it is stated that the victim was brought with the history of RTA by the rider of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-06-EK- 6133. The respondent-Insurer did not clarify the same by examining the author of the said documents. Under circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in relying on the evidence of the claimants and holding that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-06-EK-6133. Reg. Quantum: 14. The Tribunal based on the post mortem report has considered the age of deceased as 35 years and there is no dispute about that. The claimants did not adduce any evidence regarding proof of actual income of the deceased. Therefore - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 Tribunal has assessed the notional income at Rs.7,000/- having regard to the prevailing wage rates and cost index during the relevant time. As per the Constitutional Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi referred to supra having regard to employment of the deceased 40% future prospects has to be awarded and not 50% as considered by the Tribunal. As the deceased had 8 dependents 1/5th to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Having regard to the ratio in the case of SMT.SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR2, applicable multiplier is `16'. Therefore compensation payable on the head of `loss of dependency' is (Rs.7,000+Rs.2,800= Rs.9,800x4/5=7840x12x16=15,05,280/-) 15. Claimant Nos.1 and 5 together are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- on the head `Spousal Consortium'. Second marriage of the deceased is bigamous marriage. Therefore both wives together get Rs.40,000/- as spousal consortium. Other claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each on the head `filial and parental consortium'. In view of the Judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi referred to supra 2 (2009)6 SCC 121 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 escalation at 10% has to be granted on the compensation payable on the head of `consortium' and other conventional heads. Compensation payable towards `loss of estate and funeral expenses' is Rs.15,000/-+Rs.15,000/- with escalation as aforesaid. As the claimants have not received any amount since 2014 from the date of filing of the petition, escalation of 10% on conventional heads has to be given with three revisions. Hence, just compensation payable is as follows: SL.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 15,05,280=00 2. Loss of Consortium Rs.52,000x7 Rs. 3,64,000=00 3. Loss of Estate (Rs.15,000+ Rs.4,500) Rs. 19,500=00 4. Funeral Expenses (Rs.15,000+Rs.4,500/- Rs. 19,500=00 Total compensation Rs.19,08,280=00 16. Compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. payable by respondent/insurer to the claimants No.1 to 8. For the aforesaid reasons, both appeal and Cross objection deserve to be allowed in part. Hence the following: ORDER 1. Appeal and Cross objection are allowed in part. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15878-DB MFA No. 9104 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 11 of 2019 2. The impugned award is modified as follows: (i) Claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.19,08,280/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. (ii) Respondent No.2-insurer shall deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal on adjusting the amount already deposited if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iii) Award with regard to apportionment of compensation amongst claimants and investment is maintained. Registry shall transmit the amount in deposit if any and trial court records to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE DS/SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32