- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20983 MFA No. 6715 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6715 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, APPEALS HUB, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP. BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. LAXMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAPPA @ VENKATARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. NAGARAJA S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA @ VENKATARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3. SHANKAR S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA @ VENKATARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 4. KEMPEGOWDA S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA @ VENKATARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20983 MFA No. 6715 of 2015 5. LOKESHA S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA @ VENKATARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 6. SONNAMMA W/O. LATE CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO. 365, KANNAMANGALA, BENGALURU EAST, BENGALURU - 560 067. 7. APPAJI GOWDA S/O. RUDRAPPA, R/AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE & PO, VIA KADUGODI, BENGALURU - 560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.T. GURUDEV PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R6; R7 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.5.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.813/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDE, 24TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.17,97,900/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20983 MFA No. 6715 of 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by Respondent No.2 Insurer against the judgment & award dated 27.05.2015 passed in MVC No.813/2014 by the MACT & V Addl. Judge of Court of Small Causes & XXIV ACMM, Member, MACT, Bangalore (SCCH 20). 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that: It is the case of the claimant that on 24.01.2014 at 12.10 p.m. Venkatappa @ Venkatarajappa met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA- 53 K-2673 by its rider on Kadugodi Hoskote main road, near Shanimahatma temple. As a result of impact, he sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. With these reasons claimants are seeking compensation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20983 MFA No. 6715 of 2015 4. Undisputedly Respondent No.1 was the owner and Respondent No.2 was the insurer of the offending vehicle. Claimant no.1 is the wife and claimant nos.2 to 5 are children and claimant no.6 is the mother of the deceased. 5. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 denied the contentions of the claim petitioners and Respondent No.1 further contended that the said vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2 and in the event the petition is allowed, then Respondent No.2 be directed to pay the compensation. 6. Respondent No.2 in addition to denial of contentions of the petitioners, further contended that its liability is restricted to terms & conditions of policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the vehicle. With these reasons, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20983 MFA No. 6715 of 2015 8. The claimants to prove their case examined PW-1 and marked Exs.P1 to P42. Respondent No.2 examined one witness RW-1 and marked Exs.R1 & R2. 9. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the materials available on record held that accident occurred due to negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and respondents are liable to pay compensation of Rs.17,97,900/-. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 61 years, his income as Rs.12,000/- p.m., added 30% income towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th of his income towards personal expenses and applying multiplier as 10, awarded compensation under different following heads: Sl. No. Head of account Amount in Rs. 1 Loss of dependency 14,04,000-00 2 Loss of love & affection 3,00,000-00 3 Funeral & obsequies 20,000-00 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20983 MFA No. 6715 of 2015 4 Loss of consortium 50,000-00 5 Medical expenses 23,900-00 Total 17,97,900-00 10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the insurer and learned counsel for claimants. Learned advocate for insurer submits that the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-p.m. without any basis. Though the Tribunal accepted age of the deceased as 61 years but applied multiplier as 10 instead of 7. All the claimants were majors and Claimants Nos.2 to 6 were not depending upon the earnings of the deceased. Therefore the Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses. The amount of compensation awarded under other heads are exorbitant. With these reasons appellant-insurer prayed to re- calculate the amount of compensation. 11. The learned counsel for claimants supports the impugned judgment and fairly submits that the Tribunal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20983 MFA No. 6715 of 2015 has taken the multiplier as 10 instead of 7 and the same be corrected in accordance with the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Pranay Sethi1. He vehemently contends that claimants have produced sufficient material to prove the income of the deceased. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment discussed in detail and assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- p.m. The said finding of the Tribunal is based on the records, therefore there is no need to interfere in the said finding. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant in reply submits that in the cross-examination, PW1 has stated that none of the documents produced by the appellant bears the name of the deceased. Therefore the said documents are not pertaining to the deceased and on that basis income cannot be assessed. 13. Following point arises for consideration: 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20983 MFA No. 6715 of 2015 (i) Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation? 14. The fact of accident is not disputed and death of Venkatappa @ Venkatarajappa in the said accident is also not disputed. Therefore there is no need to reconsider the same. 15. The claimants in the petition have contended that the deceased was an agriculturist and earning Rs.6 lakh per annum by doing agricultural work. He was a member of milk diary and earning Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,000/- p.m. from the said diary. He was also engaged in cocoon trading and earning around Rs.60,000/-p.a. He used to grow flowers and earn Rs.25,000/- p.m. during the seasonal period. He was a sericulturist and was earning Rs.40,000/- p.m. To corroborate the said facts claimants have produced the documents i.e., RTC and receipts at Ex.P16 to P39. During cross-examination it was suggested that the said documents do bear the name of his father which was denied by him. He denied - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20983 MFA No. 6715 of 2015 suggestions that the said documents were fabricated merely to claim higher amount of compensation. In the cross-examination nothing was brought out to totally disbelieve the evidence of PW1. 16. It is true that in the later part of the cross- examination he admitted that name of his father was not mentioned in Ex.P27 to P36. 17. The claimants have produced the RTC of agricultural land and some receipts issued for cocoon sales. The said documents do not bear anybody's name, and there is no option to mention the name of the person, sold it. If these documents are not belonging to the deceased, then how could they come in possession, is not explained. Mere denial or not mentioning of deceased name in the records is not a reason for discarding the said documents. The Tribunal considered the said fact in detail and came to the conclusion on merits of the matter that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. This does not call for any interference by this court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20983 MFA No. 6715 of 2015 18. The Tribunal added 30% of income as future prospects. In para 22, the Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 61 years as per Ex.R2. Once he crosses the age of 61 years, the question of future prospects do not arise. Therefore the addition of 30% to the income of deceased is incorrect. 19. Claimants Nos.2 to 4 are sons of the deceased. All of them are between the age group of 29 to 35 years. PW1 in the evidence has stated that they have got independent source of income in addition to depending upon the deceased. Claimant No.1 is widow of deceased. Therefore the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/4th income towards personal expenses, it shall be 1/3rd. 20. As already stated above, deceased was aged 61 years and as per the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and others2 suitable multiplier applicable is 7 and on the basis of this the 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20983 MFA No. 6715 of 2015 amount of compensation, loss of dependency has to be assessed. 21. As per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) as well as MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM3 compensation has to be awarded under the conventional head. Accordingly claimants are entitled for the following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency (Rs.12,000/-x 12 x 7) x 2/3 6,72,000/- Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000X6) 2,40,000/- Loss to the estate 15,000/- Medical expenses 23,900/- Towards funeral expenses 15,000/- Total Rounded off: 9,65,900/- 9,66,000/- 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20983 MFA No. 6715 of 2015 22. Thus, claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.9,65,900/- as against Rs.17,97,900/- awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants are entitled to interest on the said amount at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, the impugned award needs modification. Undisputedly respondents are liable to pay compensation. 23. For the above said discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Appeal is allowed in part. Judgment and award dated 27.05.2015 passed by learned V Addl. Small Causes Judge in MVC 813/2014 is modified. ii) Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,66,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization as against Rs.17,97,900/- awarded by the Tribunal. iii) Claimant No.1 is entitled for 50% of the above said compensation amount and Claimants - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20983 MFA No. 6715 of 2015 Nos.2 to 6 are entitled to equal share in the remaining 50% of compensation amount with proportionate interest. v) Out of the compensation, Claimant No.1 shall deposit 30% of her share in a Fixed Deposit account for a period of one year in any of the Nationalized Banks. vi) The amount apportioned in favour of Claimants Nos.2 to 6 is marginal, therefore entire amount is ordered to be released in their favour respectively on due identification. vii) Whatever amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE SNB/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT: BHK