- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8753 OF 2013 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8754 OF 2013 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 8753/2013 BETWEEN: 1. NAVEEN KUMARI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O VENKATESHA @ VENKATESHAIAH, 2. KEMPARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O LATE ANJANAIKA, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT D. NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KORATAGERE TALUK NOW RESIDING AT MADHUGIRI ROAD, SIRA GATE, TUMKUR TOWN …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PATEL D. KARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M. SHANTHI W/O S.MANOHAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, SANDHYA TOURS & TRAVELS NO.21/14, AZEEMA BUILDING T.S.P ROAD, KALASIPALYAM, BENGALURU CITY-560 002 (OWNER OF BUS) Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PRESTIGE CORRICHE, NO.62/1, II FLOOR, RICHMOND ROAD, NEAR ICICI TOWERS, BENGALURU-560 002 BY ITS MANAGER 3. SRI S.ANANTHAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SHIVANNA I.K. R/O IRAKSANDRA COLONY HOSAHALLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 129 4. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, T.G.M.A. BUILDING, J.C. ROAD, TUMKUR-572 101 BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.K.N.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 R1- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.315/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 8754/2013 BETWEEN: 1. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA @ LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O SULAHANUMAIAH @ SULAIAH, 2. S.RUDRESH AGED 21 YEARS, S/O LATE SULAHANUMAIAH @ SULAIAH, 3. Y.S SUMA AGED 19 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 D/O LATE SULAHANUMAIAH @ SULAIAH, ALL ARE RESIDING AT ELERAMPURA VILLAGE, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT ...APPELLANTS (BY BY SRI. K.SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PATEL D. KARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M. SHANTHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O S. MANOHAR, SANDHYA TOURS AND TRAVELS NO.21/14, AZEEMA BUILDING, T.S.P. ROAD, KALASIPALYAM, BENGALURU CITY-560 002 (OWNER OF BUS) 2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PRESTIGE CORRICHE NO.62/1, II FLOOR, RICHMOND ROAD, NEAR ICICI TOWERS, BENGALURU, BY ITS MANAGER 3. SRI S. ANANTHAKUMAR AGED 43 YEARS, S/O SHIVANNA I.K, R/O IRAKSANDRA COLONY, HOSAHALLI KORATAGERE TALUK-572 129 TUMKUR DISTRICT (OWNER OF MAXI PICKUP) 4. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, T.G.M.A. BUILDING J.C. ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 101 BY ITS MANAGER ...RESPONDENTS (SRI.B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.K.N.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 R1- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.8.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.316/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed in MVC.No.315/2010 and 316/2010 dated 27.08.2012 by the Principal District Judge and Member, MACT, Tumkur, MFA.No.8753/2013 and MFA.No. 8754/2013 are filed. The Tribunal had disposed of the matters by way of a common order. Hence, these two appeals are disposed off by way of a common order. 2. It is the case of the claimants that the claim petitions are filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased two in numbers in the accident that occurred on 07.06.2009. It is their case that they have borrowed a Maxi pickup motor vehicle travelled from Iraksandra colony to Entaganahalli, Bengaluru in order to attend a marriage function, while they were proceeding on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 Koratagere-Dabspete road at about 1.00 pm., near D. Nagenahalli, a bus moving from Dabaspete side to Koratagere, because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, when the driver of the Maxi pickup vehicle took his vehicle towards left side of the road to avoid the accident, the bus dashed to the back side of the Maxi pickup vehicle and caused the accident and because of the accident, the injuries that were sustained to both the deceased have succumbed to the same and one died in the hospital on 12.06.2009. It is the case that the claimants in MVC.No.315/2010 are the wife and the father of the deceased, who are the dependents of the deceased. In MVC.No.316/2010, the claimants are the wife, daughter and son, who are the dependents of the deceased. It is their case that the deceased was working for his livelihood by doing agricultural work and earning amount of Rs.8,000/- per month and the age of both the deceased is 35 years. When it comes to the liability and the negligence, the Tribunal had given a finding that as per the police records, the accident had taken place because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the Maxi pickup vehicle and the said Maxi pickup vehicle is a goods vehicle. It is the case of the claimants that they have hired the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 said vehicle and were travelling in the same. As they are the gratuitous passengers, they are not entitled for any compensation from the owner and insurer of the said Maxi pickup van. When it comes to the bus, as the evidence on record shows that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the Maxi pickup vehicle, the Tribunal had held that there is no liability on the owner and the insurer of the bus and accordingly, the Tribunal had held that the owner alone is liable to pay the compensation. When it comes to the compensation, the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.6,14,850/- in MVC.No.315/2010 and compensation of an amount of Rs.6,11,000/- was granted in MVC.No.316/2010. Aggrieved thereby the claimants are before this Court. 3. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had granted the compensation in MVC.No.315/2010 as per the table given below: Sl. No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.5,76,000/- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 2. Loss of consortium Rs.30,000/- 3. Transportation and Funeral Rs.5,000/- 4. Medical Expenses Rs.3,850/- Total Rs.6,14,850/- 4. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had granted the compensation in MVC.No.316/2010 as per the table given below: Sl. No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.5,76,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.30,000/- 3. Transportation and Funeral Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.6,11,000/- 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ claimants submits that the accident had taken place because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, the insurer and the owner of the bus are liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that the claim petition is filed seeking compensation both against the owner and insurer of the Maxi pickup vehicle as well as the owner and insurer of the bus. It is submitted that he had examined the witnesses PW3 and 4, who were travelling in the bus to show that the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 negligence is on the part of the driver of the bus which was not considered by the Tribunal. It is submitted that when the passengers who were travelling have lost their lives, they are entitled for compensation, even if they are gratuitous passengers. He had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and others1. Relying on the said judgment, learned counsel submits that even the principle of pay and recover will apply and the insurance companies are liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as the claimants are third parties to the insurance policy. When it comes to the compensation, learned counsel submits that the Tribunal had failed to grant the future prospects and when it is the case that he is earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month, the Tribunal ought not have taken the income at an amount of Rs.4,500/-. Further, even under the conventional heads also, the amount granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. When it comes to MVC.No.316/2010, learned counsel submits that though the son of the deceased is major, 1 AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1340 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 he is dependent on the father and the Tribunal had not considered the son as dependent and not granted the amount. It is submitted that the insurance companies are liable to pay the compensation and the compensation needs to be enhanced. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ insurance company, which has insured the bus submits that all the police records clearly reveals that it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maxi pickup vehicle, the accident had taken place. When the evidence is clear on record to show that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, question of liability will not arise and the Tribunal had rightly considered the same. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4/ insurance company, which has insured the Maxi pickup vehicle submits that the vehicle involved in the accident is the goods vehicle and the deceased were not supposed to travel in the same. It is the case of the gratuitous passengers that they have hired the vehicle to attend the marriage. Being the gratuitous passengers, they are not entitled for any compensation and in view of the violation of the terms and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 conditions of the policy, the question of pay and recover will not apply and he submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Baljit Kaur referred supra, will not apply to the facts in circumstances of this case. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The owner and insurer of both the vehicles i.e., the bus and the Maxi pickup vehicle are made respondents to the claim petition. The argument of the learned counsel is that there is a composite negligence. He says that the two vehicles are involved and there is negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and alternatively, it is also argued that though they are the gratuitous passengers, the principle of pay and recover will apply. On both the counts, this Court is not able to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. When two vehicles are involved, when there is a composite negligence, then the claimants are at liberty to claim compensation either on one vehicle or on both the vehicles. Now, here the claimant cannot take the ground of composite negligence, the evidence on record is contrary to the submission of the learned counsel and all the medical and police records reveals that it is because of the negligence on - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 the part of the driver of the Maxi pickup vehicle, the accident had taken place. In that case, the owner and the insurer of the bus are not liable. Then coming to the Maxi pickup vehicle which is a goods vehicle, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the pay and recover principle will apply in the light of the law laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Baljit Kaur stated supra. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while discussing the earlier legal position in view of the law laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Asha Rani and others2 and where the claimants have already had the benefit of the judgment in Asha Rani’s case where the pay and recover principle is applied. In those particular facts and circumstances, pay and recover is ordered, so there is no precedent by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in case of the gratuitous passengers, the insurance company is liable to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. As such even on that count also, this Court is not able to appreciate the said submission. In the light of the same, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal had rightly held that the 2 2001 AIR SCW 3295 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 owner of the Maxi pickup vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation and rightly exonerated the insurance companies. 9. Then, coming to the quantum of compensation in MVC.No.315/2010, the age of the deceased is 35 years, he has two dependants. According to the claimant, he was earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. The Tribunal had taken the income at Rs.4,500/- per month. This accident had taken place in the year 2009. Considering the chart prepared by the Legal Services Authority, the notional income is taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased, the future prospects at 40%, which would come to Rs.7,000/-. As the deceased is having two dependants, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs.2,333/-. Then the contribution of the deceased to the family is Rs.4,667X12 and the relevant multiplier is 16, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.8,96,064/-. Towards Consortium for the two dependants, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.88,000/-, towards funeral expenses an amount of Rs.36,000/- is granted. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 10. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER3, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses. 11. The claimants are therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads of Compensation Compensation Awarded by Tribunal in Rs. Compensation Awarded by this Court in Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.5,76,000/- Rs.8,96,064/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.30,000/- Rs.88,000/- 3. Transportation and Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.36,000/- 4. Medical Expenses Rs.3,850/- - 5. Legal Expenses - Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.6,14,850/- Rs.10,30,064/- Altogether the claimants in MVC.No.315/2010 are entitled for a compensation of an amount of Rs.10,30,064/-. Accordingly, the MFA.No.8753/2013 is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.6,14,850/- to Rs.10,30,064/- and the owner of the Maxi Pickup vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. 3 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 12. Then, when it comes to MVC.No.316/2010, here also, the age of the deceased is 35 years and according to the dependants of the deceased, the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. As in the earlier case, the loss of dependency would come to an amount of Rs.8,96,064/-. In this case, the dependants are the wife, daughter and son. The Tribunal had considered only wife and daughter. The age of the son is 18 years. Considering that the son is major, the Tribunal had observed that he is not a dependent. That finding of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the dependants have to be considered as three in numbers. Then in that case, towards loss of dependency, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.8,96,064/-, towards Consortium (Rs.44,000X3), this Court is granting an amount of Rs.1,32,000/-. Towards funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.36,000/- is granted. 13. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA stated supra, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 14. The claimants are therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads of Compensation Compensation Awarded by Tribunal in Rs. Compensation Awarded by this Court in Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.5,76,000/- Rs.8,96,064/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.30,000/- Rs.1,32,000/- 3. Transportation and Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.36,000/- 5. Legal Expenses - Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.6,11,000/- Rs.10,74,064/- All together, the claimants in MVC.No.316/2010 are entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.10,74,064/-. Accordingly, MFA.No.8754/2013 is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.6,11,000/- to Rs.10,74,064/- and the owner of the Maxi pickup vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:9902 MFA No. 8753 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 8754 of 2013 copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. iii. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6