- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12392 MFA No. 6862 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6863 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6862 OF 2015 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6863 OF 2015 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 6862/2015 BETWEEN: THE LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GIC LTD., MYSORE TRADE TOWER OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND MYSORE NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28 EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDING M.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LOKESH S/O LATE NANJAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT SHAMBUDEVANAPURA VILLAGE T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE - 571 124. 2. R.SATISHA S/O K.RAMU AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.180 YERAGANAHALLI Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12392 MFA No. 6862 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6863 of 2015 MYSORE -570 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.HARISH KUMAR V.L., ADVOCATE FOR R1- ABSENT R2- SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V.C.O. DATED: 04.04.2019) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.05.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.65/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, TIRUMAKUDALU NARASIPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,70,006/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF DEPOSIT IN THE TRIBUNAL. IN MFA NO. 6863/2015 BETWEEN: THE LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GIC LTD., MYSORE TRADE TOWER OPP: KSRTC GUS STAND MYSORE NOW REP BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28 EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDING M.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHAVANI @ EISWARYA D/O RAJAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS R/AT LINGAYITARA BEEDI NILASOGE VILLAGE T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE 571124 SINCE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS A MINOR REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER SRI.RAJAPPA 2. R.SATISHA S/O K.RAMU AGED MAJOR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12392 MFA No. 6862 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6863 of 2015 R/AT NO.180 YERAGANAHALLI MYSORE - 570 011. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.HARISH KUMAR V.L., ADVOCATE FOR R1- ABSENT R2- SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V.C.O. DATED: 04.04.2019) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:2.5.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.64/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, TIRUMAKUDALU NARASIPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.95,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT IN THE TRIBUNAL. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT IN MFA.NO.6862/2012 Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.65/2012 dated 02.05.2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura, the Insurance Company is before this Court questioning the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation that is granted to the claimant. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 28.05.2012 at about 5:30 p.m., when the deceased was crossing the Talakadu-T.Narasipura road, at that time the driver of the lorry came from Talakadu side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12392 MFA No. 6862 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6863 of 2015 she had sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to T.Narasipura Govt. Hospital for first aid treatment and thereafter shifted to St.John's hospital, Mysore, where she was treated as inpatient for about two days. She had succumbed to the injuries and died in the hospital. 3. It is the case of the Insurance Company that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal had held that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.5,70,006/- as per the table below: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Loss of income/dependency : Rs. 5,28,000/- 2. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 10,000/- 3. Transportation and funeral : Rs. 15,000/- 4. Medical Bills : Rs. 17,006/- TOTAL : Rs. 5,70,006/- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12392 MFA No. 6862 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6863 of 2015 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the accident had taken place on a highway, when the deceased was crossing the road where there was no zebra crossing. In that case, the deceased has contributed to the accident. This aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. Then coming to the compensation, it is submitted that the claimant is the major son of the deceased who is 34 years old and he is not dependent on the deceased. In that case, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income. In this case, the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd of the income, considering the major son as the dependent. He submits that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and not fixing the contributory negligence on the deceased is also bad and the same needs to be interfered by this Court. 5. When this matter came up yesterday, there was no representation on behalf of the respondents. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and posted the matter today as part-heard. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, this Court is considering the matter on the merits of it. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12392 MFA No. 6862 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6863 of 2015 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company, perused the entire material on record. The contention with regard to the rash and negligent driving which has happened in the daylight, the Insurance Company has failed to examine anybody in this regard and just like that on the ground that she was crossing the road where there was no zebra crossing cannot be a ground to say that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 7. Coming to the compensation, this Court is not able to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company with regard to the major son of the deceased is not a dependant. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the recent judgment in case of Seema Rani Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited1. Hence in view of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere. 8. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed and the amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. 1 2025 INSC 192 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12392 MFA No. 6862 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6863 of 2015 IN MFA.NO.6863/2012 9. Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.64/2012 dated 02.05.2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura, the Insurance Company is before this Court questioning the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation that is granted to the claimant. 10. It is the case of the claimant that on 28.05.2012 at about 5:30 p.m., when the claimant was crossing the Talakadu- T.Narasipura road along with her mother and grandmother, at that time the driver of the lorry came from Talakadu side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to the impact, she had sustained grievous injuries to her parietal bone, on face and ear and was immediately shifted to Talakadu Govt. Hospital for first aid treatment and thereafter shifted to St.John's hospital, Mysore, where she was treated as inpatient for about seven days. 11. It is the case of the Insurance Company that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The Tribunal had held that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and the accident had taken place - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12392 MFA No. 6862 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6863 of 2015 because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.95,000/- as per the table below: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 30,000/- 2. Medical bills and hospitalization charges : Rs. 10,000/- 3. Food and nourishment, conveyance etc. : Rs. 5,000/- 4. Loss of amenities : Rs. 50,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 95,000/- 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the accident had taken place on a highway, when the claimant was crossing the road where there was no zebra crossing. In that case, the claimant has contributed to the accident. This aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. He submits that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and not fixing the contributory negligence on the claimant is also bad and the same needs to be interfered by this Court. 13. When this matter came up yesterday, there was no representation on behalf of the respondents. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12392 MFA No. 6862 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6863 of 2015 and posted the matter today as part-heard. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, this Court is considering the matter on the merits of it. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company, perused the entire material on record. The contention with regard to the rash and negligent driving which has happened in the daylight, the Insurance Company has failed to examine anybody in this regard and just like that on the ground that she was crossing the road where there was no zebra crossing cannot be a ground to say that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The claimant had sustained injuruies and the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards food and nourishment, conveyance etc. and the amount granted under the other heads also is reasonable and this Court is not inclined to interferer with the award passed by the Tribunal. 15. Hence, the appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed and the amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12392 MFA No. 6862 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6863 of 2015 16. Accordingly, MFA No.6862/2015 and MFA No.6863/2015 are dismissed. i. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. ii. No costs. iii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3