- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1006 MFA No. 1243 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9180 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1243 OF 2018 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9180 OF 2017 (MV-D) IN M.F.A. No. 1243 OF 2018: BETWEEN: THE CLAIM MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN. BY THE MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, No.302, 3RD FLOOR, S.S.CORNER BUILDING, LADY CURZON HOSPITAL, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE. NOW AT SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5/4, 3RD CROSS, S.V.ARCADE, BELAKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OPP:BANNERAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, II M.B. POST, BANGALORE-560 076. BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1006 MFA No. 1243 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9180 of 2017 AND: 1. NAGARATHNA., AGE 47 YEARS, W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKHARA, @ KUMARA, 2. ASHA, AGED 25 YEARS, W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKHARA, @ KUMARA, 3. BHADRAMMA, AGE 72 YEARS, W/O LATE KENCHEGOWDA, @ PAPAIAH, ALL ARE R/AT MARAGODANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. RESIDING NOW AT PRESENTLY JAYANAGARA, NEAR VIJAYA SCHOOL, HASSAN-573 201. 4. PRADEEPKUMAR, MAJOR, S/O ERAIAH, KUDU MANGALORE VILLAGE, SOMAVARAPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-573 126. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.T.JAGADEESH., ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2 & R-3; R-4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MC ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.1494/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING GLOBAL COMPENSATION OF Rs.6,76,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1006 MFA No. 1243 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9180 of 2017 IN M.F.A. No.9180 OF 2017: BETWEEN: 1. NAGARATHANA, W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARA @ KUMARA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. ASHA, LATE CHANDRASHEKARA @ KUMARA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O MARAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARSHIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. PRESENTLY R/AT JAYANAGARA, NEAR VIJAYA SCHOOL, HASSAN-573201. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESH.H.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O ERAIAH, MAJOR, R/O KUDU MANGALORE VILLAGE, SOMAAVARPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 583 321. 2. THE MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., No.302, 3RD FLOOR, S AND S CORNER BUILDING, LADY CURZON HOSPITAL, SHIVAJI NAGARA, BANGALORE-560 013 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1006 MFA No. 1243 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9180 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.1494/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV JUDGMENT 1. A claim petition was presented by the legal representatives of one Chandrashekhara under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act contending that an accident occurred on 02.08.2015 between a motorcycle and a Eicher canter lorry, as a result of which, the rider of the motorcycle i.e., Chandrashekhara @ Kumara was killed. 2. The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has come to the conclusion that the accident did occur as a result of collision between a motorcycle and a Eicher canter lorry due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and since the lorry was insured, the insurer was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1006 MFA No. 1243 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9180 of 2017 liable to satisfy the compensation and has awarded a sum of Rs.6,76,000/- as compensation. 3. Aggrieved by this award, both the insurer as well as the claimants are in appeal. 4. Sri O.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the insurer strenuously contended that the occurrence of the accident itself was doubtful and, at any rate, the Eicher canter lorry that it had insured was not involved in the accident and consequently, no liability could have been fastened on the insurer. He placed reliance on the fact that the complaint did not state the number of the vehicle which was involved in the accident and this by itself proves the falsity of the complaint regarding involvement of Eicher canter lorry. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal was right in concluding that Eicher canter lorry was involved in the accident, since the police, after investigation, have in fact laid charge sheet - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1006 MFA No. 1243 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9180 of 2017 on the owner of Eicher canter lorry, who was himself driving the vehicle. He also contended that the eyewitness to the accident was also examined and therefore, the contention of the insurer regarding non-involvement of Eicher canter lorry was untenable. He also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate. 6. As far as occurrence of the accident is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the police have laid a charge sheet against the owner of Eicher canter lorry, who was himself driving the vehicle and this factor by itself was enough to hold that Eicher canter lorry was involved in the accident. The claimants have in fact examined one Girisha as P.W.2, who stated that he witnessed the accident. On the other hand, the insurer had not adduced the evidence of any person to indicate that Eicher canter lorry that it had insured was not involved in the accident and though it was open for the insurer to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1006 MFA No. 1243 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9180 of 2017 summon the owner of the vehicle and elicit from him that his vehicle was not involved, it has chosen not to do so. 7. It may also be pertinent to state here that the owner of Eicher canter lorry entered appearance and also filed his objections. Though it was stated in the objections that Eicher canter lorry was not involved, the owner did not step into the box in support of his plea. In light of these facts, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that Eicher canter lorry insured by the appellant – insurer was responsible for the accident. Consequently, the appeal of the insurer is dismissed. 8. As far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of the accident and has assessed the notional income at Rs.6,000/- since there was no proof of actual income. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to adopt the notional income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2015, would be Rs.9,000/-. Since - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1006 MFA No. 1243 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9180 of 2017 the deceased was aged 50 years, 10% requires to be added towards future prospects and since there were two dependents, 1/3rd requires to be deducted towards personal expenses, which makes his income to be Rs.6,600/- (Rs.9,000/- + 10% - 1/3). Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.10,29,600/- (Rs.6,600 X 12 X 13) towards loss of dependency. 9. The claimants, being the wife and daughter of the deceased, each would be entitled to Rs.48,400/- i.e., Rs.96,800/- towards loss of consortium. They would also be entitled to Rs.36,300/- under conventional heads. 10. Thus, in modification of the award of the Tribunal, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.11,62,700/- as against Rs.6,76,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1006 MFA No. 1243 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9180 of 2017 11. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 12. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal. 13. On deposit of such amount, claimant – wife of the deceased would be entitled to 90% of the compensation amount, out of which, she shall be permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/- and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank of her choice with permission to withdraw the interest accrued periodically. The claimant – daughter of the deceased would be entitled to 10% of the compensation amount, which she shall be permitted to withdraw. 14. The appeal of the claimants is accordingly allowed in part. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92