- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33290-DB MFA No. 1580 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 104 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1580 OF 2016 (MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.104 OF 2018 (MV-D) IN MFA No.1580/2016 BETWEEN: UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. UNIT 401, 4TH FLOOR SANGAM COMPLEX 127, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD ANDHERI MUMBAI-400 059 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEVARAJ A.N. S/O. ARMUGAM NOW AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O. DEVARAJ A.N. NOW AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 3. NANDINI D/O. DEVARAJ A.N. NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33290-DB MFA No. 1580 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 104 of 2018 ALL ARE RESIDING AT VELLAPPAGOUNDEM PALAIAM PANICKAMPATTI PALLADAM COIMBATORE. AND ALSO NO.4/36, DASANAYAKANPALYAM MALAIPALYAM 641449-SULUR (T) COIMBATORE. 4. M/S. CAPRICORN LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. NO.206/208, PRESTIGE TERMINUS AIRPORT EXIT ROAD BENGALURU-560 026. 5. GENERAL MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK PIRAMAL TOWER, 9TH FLOOR GANPATRAO KADAM MARG LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 013. 6. KUPPA DAS S/O. LATE MURGESH SHETTY NO.4, RATHAN SINGH ROAD FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU-560 031. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; R-4 CAPRICORN LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., BENGALURU IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 25-7-2022, NOTICE TO R-6 HELD SUFFICIENT) * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19-9-2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5951 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & 33RD ACMM MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33290-DB MFA No. 1580 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 104 of 2018 RS.27,72,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA.CROB NO.104/2018 BETWEEN: 1. DEVARAJ A.N. S/O. ARMUGAM NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 2. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O. DEVARAJ A.N. NOW AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 3. NANDINI D/O. DEVARAJ A.N. NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT VELLAPPAGOUNDEM PALAIAM PANICKAMPATTI PALLADAM COIMBATORE AND ALSO NO.4/36, DASANAYAKANAPALYAM MALAIPALAYAM-641 449 SULUR(T) COIMBATORE. ...CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. UNIT 401, 4TH FLOOR SANGAM COMPLEX 127, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI-400 059. 2. M/S. CAPRICORN LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. NO.206/208, PRESTIGE TERMINUS AIRPORT EXIT ROAD BENGALURU-560 026. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33290-DB MFA No. 1580 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 104 of 2018 3. GENERAL MANAGER TATA AIG GEN., INSU., CO., LTD., PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK PIRAMAL TOWER, 9TH FLOOR GANPATRAO KADAM MARG LOWER PAREL MUMBAI-400 013. 4. KUPPA DAS S/O. LATE MURGESH SHETTY NO.4, RATHAN SINGH ROAD FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU-01. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; VIDE ORDER DATED 22-9-2021, NOTICE TO R-2 AND R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH) * * * THIS MFA CROB. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19/09/2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.5951/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE XXXIII ACMM., MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MFA AND MFA CROB. ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33290-DB MFA No. 1580 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 104 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance company. MFA No.1580/2016 is filed by the Insurance company- Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., whereas MFA.Crob.No.104/2018 is filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 19.09.2015 passed in MVC No.5951/2013 on the file of VIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(SCCH-5), Bengaluru (for short, 'Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.27,72,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Tribunal are as under:- On 18.01.2013, at around 8.45 p.m., when deceased Kum. Shobana was traveling as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04-HM-6237 near Bosch Co., on an elevated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33290-DB MFA No. 1580 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 104 of 2018 flyover of Hosur Road, the rider of the motor cycle rode the same in very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a Canter bearing registration No.KA-03-B-8983, which was parked in the middle of the road without indicators and due to the impact, both rider and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. The pillion rider was shifted to Apollo Hospital, where she succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claimants filed a claim petition under section 166 of M.V. Act. Claimant No.1 is the father, claimant No.2 is the mother and claimant No.3 is the sister of deceased Kum. Shobana. 4. Learned counsel Sri. B. Pradeep, appearing for the Insurance company in MFA No.1580/2016 vehemently contended that the Tribunal without considering the contents of FIR, complaint, charge sheet, spot mahazar, spot sketch saddled liability on Canter vehicle at 90%, infact, the rider of the motor cycle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, who contributed negligence, which resulted in the accident. Hence, entire responsibility has to be fastened on the rider of the motor cycle. Therefore, Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the annual income of the deceased at - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33290-DB MFA No. 1580 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 104 of 2018 Rs.1,25,000/- p.a., infact, the salary of the deceased was Rs.12,000/- p.m. Further, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed Rs.2,00,000/- towards future prospects, which is contrary to the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104. Hence, learned counsel sought to allow the appeal. 6. Per-contra, learned counsel Sri. Shripad V. Shastri, appearing for the Cross objectors/claimants in MFA.Crob.No.104/2018 vehemently contended that as on the date of the accident, the deceased was a Probationer Software employee working in HCL Company Limited and was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. Further, the Tribunal has not properly considered the future prospects and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other conventional heads is not fair and reasonable and the same needs to be enhanced. Hence, he prayed to allow the Cross objection appeal. 7. Sri. Ravi V. Samprathi, learned Advocate for respondent No.5-Tata AIG General Insurance Co., Ltd., vehemently contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of the Canter vehicle, who had parked the vehicle in the middle of the road as could be seen in Ex-P2 mahazar with sketch. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly fastened liability on the driver of the Canter at 90% and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33290-DB MFA No. 1580 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 104 of 2018 10% on the rider of the motor cycle. Hence, he supported the judgment passed by the Tribunal. We have perused the material available on record. 8. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, the following points would arise for our consideration in this appeal:- 1. "Whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling liability to the extent of 90% on the driver of the Canter and 10% on the rider of the motor cycle? 2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement or reduction? 9. Insofar as contributory negligence is concerned, on perusal of the evidence of PW.1- Bhagyalakshmi and on perusal of Ex-P1 FIR with complaint, Ex-P2 mahazar with sketch and Ex-P6- charge sheet, the investigating officer after conducting investigation, filed charge sheet against both the driver of the Canter and rider of the motor cycle. This aspect is not disputed by both parties. From perusal of Ex-P2 sketch, it could be seen that the Canter was parked almost on the middle of the road and there was no parking light, which clearly - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33290-DB MFA No. 1580 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 104 of 2018 establishes that the driver of the Canter ought to have taken due care prior to the accident. As the Canter was parked in the middle of the road, if we apply res-ipso-loquitor, it appears that the accident occurred in the middle of the road. Thus the rider of the motor cycle came in high speed and dashed to the Canter, however, he could also have applied brake. Hence, these are fit cases warranting interference of this Court with power to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal and saddle liability on the offending vehicle i.e., Canter to the extent of 70% and 30% on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, as at the time of the accident, the rider of the motor cycle was not possessing valid driving licence. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal as regards contributory negligence is modified to that extent. 10. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- p.m., which is fair and reasonable, which is based on documentary evidence at Ex-P10-Employers letter with bank account statement and oral evidence of PW-1. Same is not disputed by the Insurance company. The deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is '18'. The deceased has left behind her parents and unmarried sister and therefore, proper deductions - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33290-DB MFA No. 1580 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 104 of 2018 towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 50%. Further, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs.2.00 lakhs towards 'future prospects'. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% of the assessed income has to be added towards future prospects. Since the deceased was working in a private company and she was a probationer, the 'loss of dependency' works out to Rs.18,14,400/- (Rs.12,000 +40% = 16,800 -50%= Rs.8,400 x 12 x18). 11. So far as awarding compensation under conventional heads is concerned, the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding fair compensation under the conventional heads. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Pranay Sethi's case, as there are three claimants, they are entitled to Rs.48,000/- each under the head 'loss of consortium', with 20% escalation(10% once in three years). Accordingly, Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 3) is awarded under the head 'loss of consortium'. 12. Further, a compensation of Rs.18,000/- each is awarded under the heads 'loss of estate' and 'funeral and transportation expenses', respectively with 20% escalation. Therefore, a sum of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33290-DB MFA No. 1580 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 104 of 2018 Rs.18,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.18,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'. 13. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:- Compensation under different Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 18,14,400 Towards loss of consortium 1,44,000 Loss of Estate 18,000 Funeral expenses 18,000 TOTAL 19,94,400 Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 27,72,500/- BALANCE -7,78,100/- 14. Since the rider of the motor cycle was not possessing valid driving licence, the owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04-HM-6273-respondent No.6(in MFA No.1580/2016) is liable to pay 30% of the compensation awarded as there is violation of policy condition. Further, in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Pappu and others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 and full Bench decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited, Bijapur v. Yallavva and another, ILR 2020 KAR 2239, the Insurance company has to pay the compensation amount in the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle under pay and recovery principle to its liability, 30% on the insurance company-Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., and 70% by the Insurance company- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33290-DB MFA No. 1580 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 104 of 2018 Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., including interest with liberty to recover from the owner of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04-HM-6237. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER 1. MFA No.1580/2016 filed by the Insurance Company- Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd., is allowed-in-part. 2. MFA.Crob.No.104/2018 filed by the appellants/claimants is dismissed. 3. The judgment and award dated 19.09.2015 passed in MVC No.5951/2013 on the file of VIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(SCCH-5), Bengaluru is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. 4. The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.19,94,400/- as against Rs.27,72,500/- awarded by the Tribunal with reduced compensation of Rs.7,78,100/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33290-DB MFA No. 1580 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 104 of 2018 5. Appellant-Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd., shall deposit the compensation amount to an extent of 70% and respondent No.5- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited shall deposit 30% of the compensation awarded with accrued interest at 6% p.a. within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, with liberty to recover 30% of the compensation amount from the owner of Motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04-HM-6237. 6. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit shall be in terms of order of the Tribunal. 7. Draw the modified award accordingly. 8. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MNList No.: 1 Sl No.: 51