- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. MFA NO. 100859 OF 2022 (MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100087 OF 2023 (MV-D) IN MFA NO.100859/2022: BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KRISHNA TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, SHREE 14, KHANAPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590006. NOW R/BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NINGAVVA W/O. MALLAPPA MURAGOD AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, 2. BHORAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA MURAGOD AGE. 09 YEARS, OCC. NIL, 3. VITTAL S/O. MALLAPPA MURAGOD AGE. 07 YEARS, OCC. NIL, RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER - RESPONDENT NO.1 4. BALAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA MURAGOD AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. NIL, 5. AKKAWWA W/O. BALAPPA MURAGOD AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. NIL, VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 6. SURESH S/O. BALAPPA MURAGOD AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. NIL, ALL ARE R/O. RAJANGATTI, TAL. GOKAK-591344. 7. BHARAMAPPA S/O. HANAMANTH BADARWADI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRIL., R/O. RAJANGATTI, TAL. GOKAK-591344. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R7; NOTICE TO R1-R6 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.12.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.2223/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT GOKAK, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.30,70,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION & ETC. IN MFA.CROB NO. 100087/2023: BETWEEN: 1. NINGAVVA W/O. MALLAPPA MURAGOD AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, 2. BHORAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA MURAGOD AGE. 10 YEARS, OCC. NIL, 3. VITTAL S/O. MALLAPPA MURAGOD AGE. 8 YEARS, OCC. NIL, 4. BALAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA MURAGOD AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. NIL, 5. AKKAWWA W/O. BALAPPA MURAGOD AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. NIL, 6. SURESH S/O. BALAPPA MURAGOD AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. NIL, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 ALL ARE R/O RAJANGATTI, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BEALGAVI-591344. ...CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHARMAPPA S/O. HANAMANTH BADARWADI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O RAJANGATTI, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BEALGAVI-591344. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, KRISHNA TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, SHREE 14, KHANAPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590006. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.100859/2022 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.12.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.2223/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT GOKAK, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC. THE MFA AND THE MFA.CROB COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The above appeal as well as cross objection are directed against the judgment and award dated 09.12.2021 passed in MVC No.2223/2019 on the file of learned XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak1. 2. MFA No.100859/2022 is filed by the insurer challenging the liability as well as quantum of compensation, whereas the claimants are in cross-objection in MFA Crob No.100087/2023 not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation with a prayer to grant enhanced compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the claimants, who are the wife, children, parents and brother of the deceased Mallappa Muragod, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental death of Mallappa Muragod that took place on 23.10.2019 involving Motorcycle bearing Chassis No.18085 and another motorcycle bearing reg. 1 ‘Tribunal’ for short - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 No.KA-49/W-0591. It is stated that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 26 years, doing agriculture work as well as coolie, earning Rs.25,000/- per month. 4. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2/Insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed statement of objections denying the entire claim petition averments. It was contended that the deceased as well as rider of the offending motorcycle were not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident, hence, there is a breach of policy conditions. Thus, prayed for exonerating the insurance company from its liability. 5. Before the Tribunal, claimant No.1-wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 apart from marking the documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the respondents, the official of respondent No.2/Insurer examined as RW1 and marked five documents as per Exs.R1 to R5. The Tribunal based on the material on record, allowed the claim petition in part awarding a total compensation of Rs.30,70,500/- with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization on the following heads: Loss of dependency Rs.28,37,252/- Loss of estate & funeral expenses Rs. 30,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 2,00,000/- Conveyance charges Rs. 2,000/- ------------------ Total Rs.30,70,252/- Rounded off to Rs.30,70,500/- ------------------ 6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.13,250/-, added 40% of the said income towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, adopted multiplier of 17 taking the age of the deceased as 28 years. Aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the insurer as well as the claimants are before this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Subhash J Baddi for the appellant/insurer as well as learned counsel Sri. Sagar Patil for the cross-objectors/claimants and perused the appeal papers along with original records. 8. Sri. Subhash J Baddi, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in support of his appeal would submit that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 the Tribunal committed a grave error in directing the insurance company to pay compensation at the first instance and with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. He submits that both the deceased as well as rider of the offending motorcycle were not having valid and effective driving license, which contributed to the occurrence of the accident. He further submits that when the accident occurred, the deceased was riding the motorcycle, hence, the claimants could not maintain the claim petition. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the insurer that the accident has occurred due to negligence of both riders of motorcycles. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have adjudicated on the aspect of contributory negligence. 9. Learned counsel Sri. Subhash J Baddi would submit that in the statement of the complainant, she has stated that mother-in-law died in the accident. However, he submits that the mother of the deceased is claimant No.5 in the claim petition, which is contrary to the statement of PW1/claimant No.1. Further, learned counsel for the insurer - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 submits that claimant No.6 is brother of the deceased, hence, he may not be considered as dependent of the deceased. He further submits that since claimant No.1/wife of the deceased has stated in her statement that mother-in- law has died in the accident and as the claimant No.6 is brother of the deceased, they may not be considered as dependents of the deceased. Therefore, he submits that deduction of 1/4th is erroneous and it ought to have been 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal. 10. Per contra, Sri.Sagar Patil, learned counsel for the cross-objectors/claimants would contend that the Tribunal taking note of the fact that the rider of the offending motorcycle was not having license, the Tribunal has rightly passed the order of pay and recover. Thus, he submits that insofar as the said finding is concerned, it needs no interference. He further submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and hence, he prays for revising the income of the deceased appropriately by allowing the cross-objection. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers including the original records of the Tribunal, the following points would arise for our consideration: i) Whether the contention of the insurer regarding contributory negligence merits any consideration? ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in ordering pay and recover? iii) Whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation? 12. Our answer to the point No.(i) & (iii) in the “negative” and point No.(ii) in the “affirmative” for the following reasons: 13. There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of the accident on 23.10.2019 resulting in death of deceased Mallappa Muragod involving two Motorcycles bearing registration Nos.KA-27/U-2534 and KA-27-R-6116. The insurance company is before this Court questioning the liability as well as quantum of compensation, whereas the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 claimants are in cross-objection praying for enhancement of compensation. 14. It is an admitted fact that the riders of both motorcycles were not possessing valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. However, the Tribunal on appreciation of the material evidence on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred solely due to the negligent riding of rider of the offending motorcycle. In that circumstance, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the insurer that the claimants could not maintain the claim petition. 15. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that it is a case of contributory negligence, which the Tribunal failed to consider. However, on perusal of Ex.P4-sketch of the spot of the accident, it is seen that the accident occurred 4 feet from the left side of the road and both motorcycles were coming in opposite direction. On careful perusal of Ex.P4- sketch and other material, we are of the considered view that the accident took place on the left side of the road and not in the middle of the road as contended by the insurer. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 Therefore, the contention of the insurer with regard to contributory negligence cannot be accepted and the same is rejected. 16. Learned counsel for the insurance company contended that claimant No.1 in her statement has stated that her mother-in-law also died in the accident, however, she is claimant No.5 in the claim petition. To the said submission, learned counsel for the claimants clarifies that the father of the deceased, who is claimant No.4 was having two wives and claimant No.5 is his 2nd wife. Therefore, it is clear that the claimants could maintain the claim petition. The said submission of learned counsel for the claimants is accepted. 17. Insofar as claimant No.6-brother of the deceased is concerned, it is seen that PW1 in her evidence has categorically deposed that claimant No.6 is a younger brother of her husband, who was also depending on the deceased. To the said statement, there is no cross- examination by the insurance company. In the absence of cross-examination on the said aspect and in the absence of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 contrary material on record, the contention of the insurance company cannot be accepted. However, the Tribunal has erred in holding that the claimant No.6 is not a dependent of the deceased and has considered only four dependents. 18. Be that as it may, even though the number of dependents is taken as four, there would be no impediment for consideration of deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, since in terms of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another2, when there are 4 to 6 dependents, deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased would be 1/4th. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. 19. Insofar as quantum of compensation, the Tribunal taking note of entire material on record, has rightly awarded total compensation of Rs.30,70,500/- under various heads, which in our view is just and reasonable and does not 2 2009 ACJ 1298 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any enhanced compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. Regarding liability is concerned, since the rider of the offending motorcycle was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal placing reliance on a decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yallavva & Another3 and also decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shamanna Vs. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Others4, has rightly ordered ‘Pay and Recover’, which in our view is just and proper and does not call for interference. 21. However, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding rate of interest at 9% on the compensation amount. Taking judicial notice of the bank rate of interest paid on fixed deposits, we incline to reduce the rate of interest to 6% per annum from 9% awarded by the Tribunal 3 2020 (2) KCCR 1405 4 2018 (9) SCC 650 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 on the entire compensation amount. To this extent, the contention of the insurer is accepted. 22. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal filed by the insurer is allowed in part. b) The cross-objection filed by the claimants is dismissed as devoid of merits. c) While maintaining the quantum of compensation, the impugned judgment & award of the Tribunal is modified only insofar as rate of interest is concerned, holding that the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of claim petition till realization. d) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal in respect of other aspect is unaltered. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14130-DB MFA No. 100859 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100087 of 2023 e) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith along with TCR. f) Draw modified award accordingly. g) No costs. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE JTR, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 46