- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14959-DB MFA No. 9621 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH 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. 9621 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. NIJALINGAPPA @ NIJALINGAIAH S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SMT BHAGYA W/O NIJALINGAPPA @ NIJALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT BURAGAMARADADOODI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD NO. 471/1, V D CHANDRU BUILDING ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD OPP SYNDICATE BANK K R PURAM EXTENSION BENGALURU – 560036 2. KRISHNAMURTHY S S/O SHANKARAPPA MAJOR SUGGANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 571511 3. NAVEEN S/O LATE RAJU Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14959-DB MFA No. 9621 of 2015 MAJOR SUGGANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571511 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 03.01.2022 V/O DTD 28.03.2022 SERVICE IN RESPECT OF R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25/07/2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.293/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, 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 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging the judgment and award in MVC No.293/2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Additional MACT, Ramanagara, the claimants in the said case have preferred this appeal. 2. The appellants were claimant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 were respondent Nos.1 to 3 in MVC No.293/2013 before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14959-DB MFA No. 9621 of 2015 the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants are parents of deceased Byrappa. On 9.11.2012 at 9.30 pm., when Byrappa was traveling in Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-03-C-837 to go to his work, the said car toppled near Kenchanaguppe gate within the limits of Bidadi Police Station. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident, Byrappa and two other inmates by name Kiran and Lohith died at the spot and other inmates suffered injuries. One injured by name Bharath, when he was being shifted to hospital died. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 were the insurer, registered owner and driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. 4. Regarding the accident, on the complaint of one Ashwathachar, Bidadi Police registered FIR in Crime No.575/2012 as Ex.P1 against the driver of the car. On investigation, the said police filed charge sheet against respondent No.3, the driver of the car for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC read with Sections 84 and 177 of the IMV Act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14959-DB MFA No. 9621 of 2015 5. The claimants filed MVC No.293/2013 alleging that the accident and death of Byrappa occurred solely due to the actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.3. They further alleged that the deceased was working in Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., and earning `8,096/- p.m., and they were depending on his income. They claimed that due to the death of Byrappa, they have suffered damages to the tune of `50,00,000/- and respondents are liable to compensate the same. 6. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not contest the petition. Respondent No.1 – insurer alone contested the petition denying the actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.3, age, occupation and income of the deceased. Respondent No.1 further contended that at the time of accident, respondent No.3 – driver of the insured vehicle was not holding valid driving licence, therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. The Tribunal on framing issues, recorded the evidence of the parties. On behalf of the claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14959-DB MFA No. 9621 of 2015 The officer of respondent No.1 – insurer was examined as RW.1 on its behalf and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. 8. The Tribunal on hearing both side, by the impugned judgment and award held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.3 in driving the car in question. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at `7,500/- p.m., deducted half of the same for the personal expenses of the deceased, considered his age as 21 years, however applied 15 multiplier based on the age of claimant No.2 and awarded compensation of `6,75,000/- on the head of loss of dependency. 9. The Tribunal in all assessed compensation at `7,25,000/- on different heads as follows: Sl.No. Head Amount in Rs. 1 Loss of dependency 6,75,000.00 2 Loss of love and affection 10,000.00 3 Loss to estate 10,000.00 4 Funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses 25,000.00 5 Transportation of dead body 5,000.00 Total 7,25,000.00 10. The Tribunal accepted the contention of respondent No.1 that at the time of accident respondent No.3 was holding driving licence only to drive a non-transport vehicle, but the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14959-DB MFA No. 9621 of 2015 vehicle in question was a transport vehicle and required endorsement was not there to drive the said vehicle. Therefore, exonerated the insurer and dismissed the petition again respondent No.1. It was further held that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation assessed with interest at 6% p.a., on the same. The claimants have challenged the said award in the above appeal. 11. Sri K.V.Shayamaprasada, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurer is unsustainable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,1 and Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Rambhadevi2. He further submits that the multiplier has to be applied based on the age of the deceased and not based on the age of the parents, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the damages including future prospects on the income of the deceased and the compensation awarded on the conventional heads is contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. 1 (2016) 4 SCC 298 2 Civil Appeal No.841/2018 c/w cases, DD 6.11.2024 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14959-DB MFA No. 9621 of 2015 Pranay Sethi3 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram 4. Thus, he seeks to enhance the compensation and fasten the liability to the insurer to pay the compensation. 12. Sri B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – insurer justifies the award so far as it relates to the quantum of compensation. He however submits that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Mukund Dewangan and Rambhadevi, referred to supra, the order of the Tribunal exonerating respondent No.1 may not sustain. 13. On considering the submissions of both side and examining the material on record, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are: i. Whether the compensation assessed by the Tribunal under the impugned award is just one? ii. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petition against respondent No.1 – insurer? 3 AIR 2017 SC 5157 4 2018 (18) SCC 130 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14959-DB MFA No. 9621 of 2015 Analysis Reg. point Nos.i and ii: 14. None of the respondents have questioned the finding of the Tribunal that the accident in question and death of Byrappa occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.3 in driving Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-03-C-837. The relationship of the claimants and deceased, the vehicle being insured with respondent No.1 are also not under dispute. 15. The Tribunal dismissed the petition against the insurer on the sole ground that the vehicle in question was commercial/transport vehicle and respondent No.3 was holding a driving licence of Light Motor Vehicle (Non-Transport). In the same accident, admittedly two other persons by name Kiran and Lohith died. Their parents had filed MVC Nos.72/2013 and 75/2013 before the Tribunal. In that case also, on the same ground the petitions against insurer were dismissed. They challenged those awards before this Court in MFA Nos.8401/2014 (MV) and 8402/2014 (MV). This Court by common judgment dated 29.7.2020 relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan, referred to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14959-DB MFA No. 9621 of 2015 supra, held that if the driver of the offending vehicle holds licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle and while driving the vehicle of the same class, if accident occurs, the endorsement on such driving licence to drive the transport vehicle is not required. Based on the ratio in the said judgment, this Court in the said appeals allowed the petition against the insurer and fastened the liability to the insurer. The said judgment has attained finality. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan and Rambhadevi, referred to supra and the judgment of this Court in the connected cases, the finding of the Tribunal that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation is unsustainable and liable to be reversed. 16. So far as the quantum, though the claimants contended that the deceased was earning `8,096/- p.m., by his alleged employment as Temporary Support Member at Toyota Kirloskar Factory, Bidadi and relied upon Exs.P7 and P8, the appointment letter and salary certificate, they did not examine the authors of those documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has notionally assessed his income as `7,500/- p.m. The said finding is not challenged by the respondents. Therefore, in the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14959-DB MFA No. 9621 of 2015 absence of any concrete proof of income of `8,096/-, the income considered by the Tribunal at `7,500/- p.m., has to be maintained. 17. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi, referred to supra, and having regard to the age and employment of the deceased, 40% has to be superadded to his income by way of future prospects. As the deceased was a bachelor, half of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 5 of the judgment of R.Valli & Ors., v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,5 referring to the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,6 has held that the multiplier has to be considered based on the age of the deceased at the time of his death and not based on the other factors. Therefore, the Tribunal was in error in considering the age of claimant No.2 in applying the multiplier. The applicable multiplier is 18. Therefore, the compensation payable under 5 Civil Appeal No.1269/2022, DD 10.2.2022 6 2009 (6) SCC 121 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14959-DB MFA No. 9621 of 2015 the head loss of dependency is `7,500/- + `3,000/- (40%) = `10,500/- - `5,250/- (half) = `5,250/-x12x18=`11,34,000/-. 19. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments of Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., referred to supra, each of the claimants are entitled to compensation of `40,000/- on the head of loss of consortium with escalation at 10% for every 3 years, which works out to `56,000/-x2=`1,12,000/-. Similarly, they are entitled to compensation of `15,000/- + `15,000/- on the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses with escalation at 10% for every 3 years, which comes to `21,000/-. Hence, the just compensation payable is as follows:- Sl.No. Head Amount in Rs. 1 Loss of dependency 11,34,000.00 2 Loss of consortium 1,12,000.00 3 Loss to estate 21,000.00 4 Funeral expenses 21,000.00 Total 12,88,000.00 20. Admittedly, on the date of the accident, the risk in question was covered by the policy issued by respondent No.1. Therefore, respondent No.1 is liable to pay the said compensation. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:14959-DB MFA No. 9621 of 2015 21. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part; ii. The impugned award is modified as follows: a. The claim petition in MVC No.293/2013 is partly allowed; b. The claimants are entitled to compensation of `12,88,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization; c. Respondent No.1 shall deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order; d. The award of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment and investment is maintained. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37