- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38837 MFA No. 1957 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1338 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1957 OF 2022(MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1338 OF 2022(MV-D) IN MFA No. 1957/2022 BETWEEN: THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTERNARY BUILIDNG M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI JAYAPRAKASH S/O YESUDAS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 2. SMT. SAGAYA MARY @ SAGAYIMARY W/O JAYAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 3. KUMARI. SUPRIYA J D/O JAYAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.134, 2ND STAGE, MARIYA VIDYA NIVAS, UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU - 570019 Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38837 MFA No. 1957 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1338 of 2022 4. KUMARI. SUNITHA MARY D/O JAYAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1, 2 & 4 ARE R/AT NO. 148, NEAR SNEHALAYA HOSPITAL SOLUR RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 127 5. MR. MOHAN KUMAR S/O RANGE GOWDA MAJOR RA/TNO. 73, W.NO. 13, BEGUR ROAD, GOORANAVHALLI C.R. PATNA HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAGHU R., ADVOCATE FOR R1-R R5- SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2860/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH- 13), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 23,11,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 1338/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI JAYAPRAKASH S/O YESU DAS AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SMT. SAGAYA MARY @ SAGAYIMARY W/O JAYAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38837 MFA No. 1957 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1338 of 2022 3. KUM. SUPRIYA J., D/O JAYAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.134, 2ND STAGE, MARIYA VIDYA NIVAS UDAYAGIRI MYSURU - 570 019 4. KUM. SUNITHA MARY D/O JAYAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS APPELLANT NO.1, 2 AND 4 ARE R/AT NO. 148, NEAR SNEHALAYA HOSPITAL SOLUR, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PIN - 562 127 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY CO. LTD., NO. 28, REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY ITS MANAGER 2. SRI. MOHAN KUMAR S/O RANGE GOWDA NO. 73, W.NO. 13, BAGUR ROAD, GOORANAVAHLLI, C.R. PATNA HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O DATED 21.02.2022, NOTICE TO R2 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.2860/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38837 MFA No. 1957 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1338 of 2022 ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-13, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.2860/2019 dated 18.11.2021 by the II Addl. Judge & ACMM & MACT, Bengaluru, both the insurance company as well as the claimants are before this court. Insurance company's appeal is MFA.No.1957/2022 and the claimant's appeal is MFA.No.1338/2022. 2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the accident. It is the case of the claimant that he is working at SLV Glass Art, Nelamangala and he was paid an amount Rs.18,000/- per month. The tribunal had taken the income at Rs.14,000/- and granted the compensation of an amount of Rs.23,11,800/-. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38837 MFA No. 1957 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1338 of 2022 3. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that there is negligence on the part of the deceased and this aspect was not considered by the tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on the deceased. It is submitted that already the amount that is awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side and they are not entitled for any enhancement. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is not a reasonable amount and needs to be enhanced. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. Though the claimants have examined proprietor of SLV Glass Art, the proprietor has not placed three documents before the court to show that he was earning an amount of Rs.18,000/-. Hence, as per the chart the Tribunal had rightly taken the notional income at Rs. 14,000/-. Hence on all the counts, the compensation that is awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable. This court is not able to appreciate the contention of the insurance company that there is contributory negligence on the part of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38837 MFA No. 1957 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1338 of 2022 deceased. Looking at the material on record, on all the accounts, this court finds no reason to entertain these appeals. i. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company as well as the claimants are dismissed. ii. Amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the tribunal. iii. 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. iv. No costs. v. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 18