- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8554 OF 2019 (MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 92 OF 2020 (MV-D) IN MFA No.8554/2019 BETWEEN THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., BRANCH OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, SM TOWERS, 11TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU. ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL ...APPELLANT (BY SRI ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . PREMA S.HEGDE W/O LATE K SANJEEVA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 2 . PRIYA D HEGDE W/O LATE DINAKARA HEGDE K, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 3 . DISHA D HEGDE D/O LATE DINAKARA HEGDE K, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT PRAKRITHI NIVAS, SASYODHYANA, SHAKTHINAGARA, KUVETTU VILLAGE, GURUVAYANAKERE POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. 4 . SIDDARAJU B S/O BAIRE GOWDA, R/AT 2ND CROSS, WARD NO.18, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H D SOMESHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJARAM S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 16.03.2023) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 28.08.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.860/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, BELTHANGADY, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.42,91,554/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT AND ETC. IN MFA CROB No.92/2020 BETWEEN 1 . SMT PREMA S HEGDE AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS W/O LATE K. SANJEEVA HEGDE 2 . SMT. PRIYA D HEGDE AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O LATE DINAKARA HEGDE K - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 3 . SMT. DISHA D HEGDE AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS D/O LATE DINAKARA HEGDE K ALL ARE R/AT PRAKRUTHI NIVAS SASYODHYAN, SHAKTHINAGARA KUVETTU VILLAGE GURUVAYANAKERE POST BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA 574214 ...CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI H D SOMESHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJARAMA S, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SIDDARAJU B S/O BAIRE GOWDA R/AT 2ND CROSS, WARD NO.18, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR KANAKAPURA TOWN KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562117 2 . THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE BRANCH OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR S.M. TOWERS, 11TH MAIN 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560001 (POLICY NO. 1405262340003600 VALIDITY FROM 10.11.2016 TO 09.11.2017) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 05.03.2024) THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 R/W SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC.NO.860/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, BELTHANGADY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 THE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, POONACHA.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The above appeal and Cross objection are filed calling in question the judgment and award dated 28.08.2019 passed in MVC.No.860/2017 by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belthangady, D.K., District1. Hence, they are taken up together for consideration. 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. It is the case of the claimants that on 20.12.2016, at 5.45 a.m., Dinakara Hegde.K2 was walking by the side of the mud road from Guruvayanakere to Shakthinagar side, on the Guruvayanakere - Karkala - Moodabidri road and when he reached near Shenoy restaurant, a bus bearing No.KA-42-A- 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deceased’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 1900 came from Guruvayanakere side i.e., from the backside, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased on his back causing the accident in question, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he died on the way to the hospital. Claiming compensation for his death, his mother, wife and daughter filed a claim petition arraying the owner and insurer of the bus as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed their statement of objections. 5. Respondent No.1 in the statement of objections denied the assertion of the claimants that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent and caused the accident in question. It is further contented that the driver of the bus had a valid driving license and the said bus was insured with respondent No.2 /insurer. Hence, it is contended that the compensation, if any, is required to be paid by respondent No.2 /insurer. 6. Respondent No.2 / insurer in its statement of objections denied the various assertions made in the claim petition and further denied that the driver of the insured bus was rash and negligent in causing the accident in question. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 7. Clamant No.2 got examined herself as PW.1, an eye-witness was examined as PW.2 and the headmaster of the Government school, Belthangady was examined as PW.3. Exs.P.1 to 12 were marked in evidence. The owner of the bus got examined himself as RW.1, the investigating officer has been examined as RW.2 and the representative of respondent No.2 /insurer has been examined as RW.3. No documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal held that the driver of the bus was negligent in causing the accident in question and further, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of ₹42,91,554/- together with interest at 6% per annum and directed respondent No.2 / insurer to pay the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the insurer has filed the above appeal and the claimants have filed the cross objection. 8. Learned counsel Sri. Ashok N. Patil, appearing for respondent No.2 / insurer contends that complaint was lodged against the unknown bus and subsequently, in the further statement, number of the insured bus has been mentioned which itself casts a doubt on the assertion made by the claimant as to the insured bus being involved in the accident. It - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 is further contended that there is contradiction in the testimony of PW.2 and the spot sketch (Ex.P.5) in as much as PW.2 has deposed that the accident occurred in a straight road, whereas the spot sketch discloses that the accident has occurred in a curved road. It is further contended that the investigating officer/ RW.2 has deposed that after seeing the CCTV footage, he has filed the charge sheet, whereas in the charge sheet there is no reference to the CCTV footage. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side. 9. Per Contra, learned counsel Sri H.D.Somesha, appearing on behalf of the claimants contends that the claimants have examined the eye witness and the police authorities on investigation have filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus. Thus, the Tribunal is justified in recording a finding that the driver of the bus was negligent and has caused the accident in question. Said finding ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 10. The submissions of both the counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. 11. The questions that arise for consideration are: i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the bus No.KA-42-A-1900 was negligent and has caused the accident in question is just and proper? ii. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded requires to be enhanced? ANALYSIS Regarding Question No.(i) 12. The claimants, in the claim petition have averred that on the date of the accident at about 5:45 am., when the deceased was walking by the side of the mud road on the Guruvayanakere - Karkala- Moodbidri road and when he reached near Shenoy restaurant, a bus bearing registration No. KA-42-A-1900 came from the hind portion of the deceased and hit him causing the accident in question. In the statement of objections filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is merely asserted that the driver of the bus was not negligent in causing the accident. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 / - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 insurer has not taken any specific defence that the insured bus was not involved in the accident. 13. PW.2 who is stated to be an eye witness has deposed regarding the manner of occurrence of the accident as per the assertions made by the claimants in the claim petition. In the cross-examination by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 he has, inter alia, stated that on a straight road the accident occurred. The PW.3 has deposed that the deceased was working as an Assistant Teacher at the Government Primary School, Melanthabettu village and his salary certificate has been marked as Ex.P.10. 14. The owner of the bus in question examined himself as RW.1. He has deposed that the driver of the bus was not negligent and caused the accident in question. He deposed that the driver of the bus was duly licensed. The investigating officer has been examined by the insurer as RW.2 and he has deposed to the fact that he investigated the complainant and filed the charge sheet with regard to the accident in question. In the cross-examination made by the claimants, he has stated that as per CCTV footage and other investigations, he has filed the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 charge sheet. The representative of the insurer has been examined as RW.3. 15. The vehement contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that the testimony of the eye witness (PW.2) is contrary to the spot sketch (Ex.P.5) in as much as PW.2 has deposed that the accident occurred in a straight road, whereas Ex.P.5 indicates that the road is a curved road is ex-facie unsustainable and liable to be rejected, inasmuch as a perusal of Ex.P.5 discloses that the road depicted in Ex.P5 is a straight road. Hence, there is contradiction in the testimony of PW.2 and the spot sketch (Ex.P.5). 16. The complaint (Ex.P.11) has been lodged on 20.12.2016 and copy of statement (Ex.P.12) has been recorded on 21.12.2016. It is no doubt true that in the complaint, the number of the bus has not been mentioned. However, in the further statement, the number of the bus has been mentioned. The said fact itself will not in any manner falsify the case put forth by the claimants. 17. After investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet (Ex.P.3). Although the respondents have examined the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 investigating officer as RW.2, there is no material to indicate that the investigation carried out by RW.2 is in any manner faulty. 18. Although, it is the vehement contention on behalf the learned counsel for the insurer that RW.2 has stated that based upon the CCTV footage he has investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet, it is relevant to note that RW.2, in the cross-examination made on behalf of the claimants, has deposed regarding he having seen the CCTV footage and based on other investigations, has filed the charge sheet. It is pertinent to note here that in the examination-in-chief of RW.2 adduced on behalf of respondent No.2, there is no statement in any manner to doubt the investigation. Although, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that the complainant has not been examined, it is relevant to note that an eye witness has been examined as PW.2 and he has also been cross-examined. 19. The claimants have examined an eye witness (PW.2). The police authorities, pursuant to the complaint and further statement lodged, upon an investigation, have filed - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 charge sheet (Ex.P.3) against the driver of the bus. Respondent No.2 – insurer did not take any specific defence regarding non involvement of the insured bus in the statement of objections. The insurer has not undertaken any independent investigation by appointing an investigator and adduced his/its evidence to demonstrate that the investigation carried out by the authorities was in any manner faulty. Having regard to the aforementioned, the contention put forth by the insurer that the insured bus has been implicated in the accident in question is liable to be rejected. 20. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record has held that the driver of the bus was negligent in causing the accident. The appellant has failed in demonstrating that the said finding is in any manner erroneous or perverse. Hence, the question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the Affirmative. Regarding Question No.(ii) 21. The deceased was aged 48 years (date of birth 31.12.1968) as on date of the accident. He was working as Assistant Government Teacher at the Government Lower - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 Primary School. His salary certificate (Ex.P.10) discloses that he was earning a gross salary of `33,831/- p.m. The professional tax of ₹200/- is required to be deducted. Hence, the monthly income after deduction of professional tax is (`33,831/- - `200/-) `33,631/- and the annual income is (`33,631/-x12) `4,03,572/-. The income-tax is required to be deducted. As per the Finance Act, during relevant year, exemption on income was `2,50,000/- and on rest of the amount tax, payable was 10%. Hence, the tax payable on the said annual income is a sum of `15,357/-. The annual income after payment of tax is assessed as (`4,03,572/- - `15,357/-) `3,88,215/-. 22. Having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd V/S Pranay Sethi And Ors3, 30% of the income of the deceased requires to be awarded towards future prospects. Since the deceased was married and the claimants are dependants, 1/3rd requires to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, the income of the deceased for the purpose of assessment of loss of dependency is re-assessed as 3 (2017)16 SCC 680 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 [`3,88,215/- + 1,16,465/- (30%) = `5,04,680/- - `1,68,226.66 (1/3rd)] `3,36,453.34. The appropriate multiplier to be applied is 13 and the loss of dependency is (`3,36,453/- x 13) `43,73,889/-. 23. Having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company V/S Nanu Ram Alias Chubru Ram And Ors4., loss of consortium is required to be awarded to the claimants in a sum of ₹40,000/- each with escalation at 10%. Hence, the loss of consortium is re-assessed as (44,000/- X 3) =1,32,000/-. 24. Loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be awarded in a sum of ₹15,000/- each together with escalation at 10%. Hence, a sum of ₹16,500/- each is required to be awarded on the said heads. 25. Having regard to the aforementioned, the total compensation under various heads is re-assessed as follows: 4 (2018)18 SCC 130 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 26. Hence, the appellants /claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of (`45,38,889/- – `42,91,554/-) `2,47,335/- together with interest at 6% p.a. Hence, question No.(ii) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 27. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i. The appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the claimants is partly allowed; ii. The judgment and award dated 28.08.2019 passed in MVC.No.860/2017 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belthangady, is modified as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (`) Amount awarded by this Court (`) 1. Loss of dependency 41,16,554.00 43,73,889.00 2. Loss of consortium 44,000.00 1,32,000.00 3. Loss of love and affection 75,000.00 00 4. Loss of estate and funeral expenses 55,000.00 33,000.00 5. Conveyance charges 5,000.00 00 Total 42,91,554.00 45,38,889.00 - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:9898-DB MFA No. 8554 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 92 of 2020 a. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of `45,38,889/- together with interest at 6% per annum; iii. The insurer shall deposit the compensation together with interest on adjusting the amount already paid, if any, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; iv. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects is confirmed; v. The amount deposited by the insurer in the present appeal together with the records shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal. SD/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE SD/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS,PNV List No.: 19 Sl No.: 5