- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1801 MFA No. 7018 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2658 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7018 OF 2023 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2658 OF 2024 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 7018/2023: BETWEEN: M/S.TATA AIG GEN.INS.CO.LTD. HALLMARK BUILDING 3RD FLOOR, DESAI CORSS HUBLI-580 029 ALSO AT, NO.69, 2ND FLOOR JP AND DJ ARCADE MILLERS ROAD BENGALURU-560 054 REP.BY ITS AVP LEGAL CLAIMS …APPELLANT (BY SRI MURALIDHARA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MANJUNATHA S/O.LATE DEVARAJA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NEAR ST.ANNE'S SCHOOL VEDAVATHI NAGARA HIRIYUR-577 599 2. VEERANNA @ VEERANNA D. S/O.VEERANNA @ DODDA VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT GOLLARAHATTY @ DODDAGOLLARAHATTY YARABALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1801 MFA No. 7018 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2658 of 2024 HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 445 3. CHETHANA @ CHETAH KUMAR S/O.VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT GOLLARAHATTY @ DODDAGOLLARAHATTY YARABALLI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 445 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVAKUMARAPPA T.C., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI SATHISHA T., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE/MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC.NO.248/2021 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA. IN MFA NO.2658/2024: BETWEEN: MANJUNATHA S/O.LATE DEVARAJA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NEAR ST. ANNE'S SCHOOL VEDAVATHI NAGARA HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 598 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI SHIVAKUMARAPPA T.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VEERANNA @ VEERANNA D. S/O.VEERANNA @ DODDA VEERANNA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1801 MFA No. 7018 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2658 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT GOLLARAHATTY @ DODDAGOLLARAHATTY YARABALLI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 445 2. CHETHANA @ CHETHAN KUMAR S/O.VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RIDER OF MOTORCYCLE BERING NO.KA.16.E.M.2907 R/AT GOLLARAHATTY @ DODDAGOLLARAHATTY YARABALLI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 445 3. THE MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. HALMARK BUILDING 3RD FLOOR, DESAI CROSS HUBLI-580 029 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SATHISHA T., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI MURALIDHARA N., ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC.NO.248/2021 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1801 MFA No. 7018 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2658 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred challenging the judgment and award dated 14.06.2023 passed in MVC.No.248/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Hiriyur, Chitradurga (for short ‘the tribunal’). The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is seeking to set-aside the judgment and award passed by the tribunal, whereas the appeal preferred by the claimant is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. Though these matters are listed for admission, with consent of learned counsels for parties, the same are taken up for final disposal. 3. Parties to the appeals shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. 4. The tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.9,00,208/- with interest at 6% per annum and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1801 MFA No. 7018 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2658 of 2024 5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for Insurance Company that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is exorbitant and the tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the driver of the offending vehicle was not at all holding a Driving License to drive the motorcycle, so also, the compensation awarded by the tribunal towards loss of dependency is erroneous and as the claimant is not the dependent, 1/3rd could not have been deducted. It is further contended that the claimant would be entitled to loss of estate at 25% as contemplated in the case of A.Manavalagan vs. A.Krishnamurthy & Others reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3268. On these grounds, he seeks to allow his appeal and consequently reduce the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for claimant contends that the tribunal has awarded inadequate and meager compensation, which calls for interference. He further contends that the tribunal has failed to take the notional income at Rs.14,500/- and committed an error by taking - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1801 MFA No. 7018 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2658 of 2024 the lesser income. On these grounds, he seeks enhancement of compensation. 7. Having heard learned counsel for Insurance Company, learned counsel for claimant and learned counsel for owner of the offending vehicle, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are: "i) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? ii) Whether the Insurance Company has made out a case for reduction of compensation? iii) Whether the claimant can be treated/considered as dependent of deceased Lakshmidevi?" 8. The occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle and death having occurred due to the road traffic accident have been proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P11. The negligence has been rightly attributed against the rider of the motorcycle. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1801 MFA No. 7018 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2658 of 2024 9. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income for awarding compensation to the claimant, it is seen that the deceased Lakshmidevi was aged 49 years as on the date of occurrence of accident and the appropriate multiplier applied by the tribunal is '13', which does not call for interference. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- per month, which in my opinion, may not be correct. Though learned counsel for claimant contends that the income is to be taken at Rs.14,500/- as per the notional income chart, I am afraid the same cannot be acceded for the reason that the claimant has himself stated that the deceased was working as Anganawadi worker and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. Under the circumstance, the income is required to be taken at Rs.10,000/- per month and accordingly, it is taken. 10. The tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, which again, in my opinion is not correct preposition of law for the reason that the claimant - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1801 MFA No. 7018 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2658 of 2024 is the son of the deceased Lakshmidevi and he is aged 26 years. He has nowhere stated that he was financially and economically dependent on the deceased Lakshmidevi. Therefore, since the claimant is the legal representative of the deceased, he will be entitled to loss of estate and he being major, cannot be classified as dependent and there is no material placed before the Court to show that he was fully dependent on the deceased Lakshmidevi. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Vinish Jain and Others reported in (2018)3 SCC 619, 50% is to be deducted from the income. Hence, in my opinion, the claimant is entitled for loss of estate rather than loss of dependency, which would come to Rs.7,80,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 50% = Rs.5000/- x 12 x 13). 11. The tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which does not call for interference. However, 10% escalation for one block period on the same - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1801 MFA No. 7018 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2658 of 2024 to be awarded under this head, which would come to Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10%). 12. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- under this head and 10% escalation for one block period on the same to be awarded under this head, which would come to Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 10%). 13. In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to the reduced compensation of Rs.8,40500/- as against Rs.9,00,208/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of estate 7,80,000-00 Funeral expenses 16,500-00 Loss of love and affection 44,000-00 TOTAL 8,40,500-00 14. Now coming to the aspect of liability fastened on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation, learned counsel for Insurance Company relies upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hemalath - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1801 MFA No. 7018 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2658 of 2024 and Others vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. in MFA.No.6154/2019 [Decided on 14.12.2023], whereby a distinction has been drawn with regard to breach of policy condition for disqualification of driver to hold the licence or holding of an invalid Driving Licence and there being no Driving Licence at all. In the present case on hand, admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a Driving Licence and nothing is produced to that effect even before this Court. The tribunal has fastened the liability as against respondent Nos.1 and 3 i.e. the owner and the Insurance Company and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 15. It is relevant to note here that since the owner of the offending vehicle is present before the Court and is participated even before the tribunal, the liability will have to be fastened as against the owner of the offending vehicle. However, learned counsel for the owner contends that in view of there being policy valid as on the date of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1801 MFA No. 7018 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2658 of 2024 occurrence of accident, the question of pay and recover in the present case would not arise, which in my opinion, cannot be accepted. 16. The situation in case of Pappu & Others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & another reported in (2018)3 SCC 208, is squarely applicable to the present case on hand and the same has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hemalatha as stated supra, which is followed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mrs.Sunitha @ Nagaveni and Others in MFA.No.3288/2013 C/w. MFA.No.3287/2013 [Decided on 29.01.2024]. Under the circumstance, the judgment and award passed by the tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation requires to be set-aside and the liability would have to be fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle to make good the compensation. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:1801 MFA No. 7018 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2658 of 2024 17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the points for consideration are answered accordingly. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeals are disposed off; ii) The judgment and award dated 14.06.2023 passed in MVC.No.248/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Hiriyur, Chitradurga, is modified; iii) The aspect of tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimant, is hereby set-aside; iv) The claimant is entitled to the reduced compensation of Rs.8,40,500/- as against Rs.9,00,208/- awarded by the tribunal; v) The compensation shall be paid by the owner of the offending vehicle to the claimant along with interest @ 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:1801 MFA No. 7018 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2658 of 2024 vi) The amount deposited by the Insurance Company before the tribunal shall be released and disbursed in favour of the Insurance Company upon providing necessary Bank details by way of electronic transfer; vii) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith; viii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact. In view of disposal of the appeals, pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57