- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38329 MFA No. 1562 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1562 OF 2025 (MV-D) BETWEEN: M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., UNIT NO SG-09 AND SG-10, GROUND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK, MANIPAL CENTER BUILDING, NO 47, DICKENSON ROAD, OPPOSITE M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE NOW RENAMED AS AND REP BY M/S ZURICH KOTAK MAHINDRA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT NO SG-09 AND SG-10, GROUND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK, MANIPAL CENTER BUILDING, NO 47, DICKSON ROAD, OPPOSITE M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SIGNATORY …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.A. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RUPAVATHI D/O VENKATARAMAPPA, W/O LATE SHINAPPA @ SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 2. MASTER NITHIN S., S/O LATE SRINIVAS N., AGED ABOUT 06 YEARS., MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. 1ST RESPONDENT 3. SRI. NANJUNDAPPA, S/O NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38329 MFA No. 1562 of 2025 4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O NATERAPPA, W/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5. KUMARI SAHANA S S/O LATE SRINIVAS N AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT ALL ARE RESIDING AT GANIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, DINNAHALLI POST, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. 6. SRI.MANJU S/O VENKATESHWARA MAJOR, R/NO.77, SAMPIGEHALLI VILLAGE NEAR MADAGADAMMA TEMPLE, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; R6 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.19.11.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.2649/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIOANL JUDGE OF SMALL CAUSE COURT AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-6), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.34,91,300/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38329 MFA No. 1562 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Mallikarjuna Reddy who represents Sri. B.C.Shivanne Gowda learned counsel on record for the appellant as well as Sri. Kailas Shankar P.S learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5. At request of both the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.2649/2021 dated 19.11.2024. 3. On the ground that the husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent Nos.2 and 5 and son of respondent Nos.3 and 4 by name Srinivas (hereinafter be referred to as 'deceased' for brevity) died in a road traffic accident they filed a petition claiming compensation. 4. The tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.34,91,300/- as compensation. The version of the appellant is that the said sum is highly excessive. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38329 MFA No. 1562 of 2025 5. Learned counsel who represents the appellant submits that the appellant is only aggrieved by the order of the tribunal in respect of taking the age of the deceased as 26 years by the date of accident. Learned counsel states that Ex.P-9 Adhar card that was produced by respondent Nos.1 to 5 themselves reveals that the deceased was born in the year 1980 and thus considering the said document, the age of the deceased ought to have been taken as 41 years by the date of accident. 6. Vehemently opposing the said submission, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 states that respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants produced Ex.P-15 date of birth certificate issued by the Head Master of higher primary school, Ganiganahalli, Malur which reveals that the deceased was born in the year 1991 and apart from that Ex.P-7 post mortem report and Ex.P-6 Inquest report were also produced and considering those documents, the tribunal rightly took the age of the deceased as 26 years by the date of accident and therefore the award of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38329 MFA No. 1562 of 2025 tribunal needs no interference. Also making a submission that the entries in Adhar card in respect of age should not be considered, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saroj and others -vs- Iffco-tokio General Insurance Co. and others in SLP (C) Nos.23939- 23940 of 2023. 7. The tribunal having considered all the documents produced which includes Ex.P-9 Adhar card, Ex.P-6 Inquest report, Ex.P-7 Post mortem report and Ex.P-15 Date of birth certificate and also taking into account the age of the wife, the children and the parents of the deceased came to a conclusion that the age of the deceased should be considered to be 26 years by the date of accident. The findings of the tribunal more particularly at para 12 of the impugned order in respect of the assessment of age thus needs no interference. Therefore, this Court holds that the appeal lacks merits. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38329 MFA No. 1562 of 2025 Amount if any in deposit be transmitted to the concerned tribunal immediately. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80 CT: BHK