- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17405 MFA No. 2271 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2271 OF 2021(MV-D) BETWEEN: M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SEETHAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, REP BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. NOW REPRESENTED M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE, BILAKAHALLI, BANNERUGHATTA MAIN ROAD, IIMB POST, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. LEELA SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. MRS. PUSHPA SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. SASHIDHAR SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 4. SANTOSH SUVERNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.13-50, SANTHOSH NILAYA, KUTPADI PADUKERE, KUDRUKARE POST, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17405 MFA No. 2271 of 2021 KUPADY, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5. DAWOOD HAKIM S/O. HAJABBA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT SHEKABBA MANZIL, PAYYARU, PUNCHALKADU POST, KALATHURU VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 6. RAHIM S/O. KASIM BEARY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT RAMEEZ MANZIL, MAJOOR KARANDADI, MAJOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6; R1 - LEELA SUVARNA, SERVED; R2 - PUSHPA SUVARNA, SERVED; R3 - SHASHIDHAR SUVARNA, SERVED; R4 - SANTHOSH SUVARNA, SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.01.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1096/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,34,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.1096/2018 dated 01.02.2021 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Udupi, the appellant/Insurance Company is before this Court - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17405 MFA No. 2271 of 2021 questioning the liability fastened on them. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.20,60,000/- for the death of the deceased in the accident. 2. It is the case of the claimants that on 24.10.2017 at about 4.30 pm., near Jumadi Sthana of Moodabettu Village, the driver of the Car was driving the offending car on NH-66 from Mangalore towards Udupi in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooter which was proceeding ahead of car, as a result rider that is deceased fell down on the road along with the scooter and sustained serious head injury. Later he succumbed to the injuries. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was doing the fishing activities and earning an amount of Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal had taken Rs.13,500/- as income and granted the compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/Insurance Company is before this court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company submits that there is no evidence to come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased is Rs.13,500/- per month. In that case, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income into consideration and ought to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17405 MFA No. 2271 of 2021 have granted the compensation. It is submitted that taking the income at Rs.13,500/- per month is without any basis and the amount that is granted by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 4. On the last occasion and even today also there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. Hence, this Court is proceeding to decide the appeal on the merits of the matter. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the material on record. At para Nos.20 and 21 of the award, the Tribunal had discussed about the income of the deceased. The Tribunal had considered Ex.Ps.14 and 15 which are the bank statements of the deceased. Ex.P.14 pertains to the year 2013. The accident had taken place in the year 2017, the Tribunal had not considered the same. Then, Ex.P15 passbook contains the transactions of money from the month of May 2015 till April 2016, then the Tribunal found that for the whole year a certain income of an amount of Rs.13,500/- is found from the passbook. Basing on that the Tribunal had arrived at the conclusion that the deceased income is Rs.13,500/- per month. The submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that unless and until there is other - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17405 MFA No. 2271 of 2021 evidence to show the income, the Court cannot take the said income into consideration is without any basis. When the bank statement shows that every month a person is receiving Rs.13,500/- and that is almost for a year and it is showing before the accident, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal had rightly taken the income at an amount of Rs.13,500/- and this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered award passed by the Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/ Insurance Company is dismissed. i. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal. ii. The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iii. No costs. iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5 CT:SK