- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3500 OF 2015 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5339 OF 2014 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 3500/2015 BETWEEN: 1. MASTER M.G.GAGAN S/O LATE M.V.GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, 2. KUMARI.M.G.MONISHA D/O LATE M.V.GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, 3. KUMARI M.G.CHAITHANYA D/O LATE M.V. GOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE MINORS AS SUCH THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AS MOTHER SMT.K.C.NAGALAKSHMI THE APPELLANT NO.4 HEREIN. 4. SMT. K.C.NAGALAKSHMI W/O LATE M.V. GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 5. SRI. VENKATARAMA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 6. SMT. AKKALAMMA W/O VENKATARAMA REDDY Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT MUTTAKADAHALLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 128. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S.M.SRINIVASA REDDY S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT CHOWDAREDDY PALYA, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 125. (OWNER OF TATA SUMO VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-05-P-2709) 2. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.16, 1ST FLOOR, S.B.L.T BUILDING, POLYTECHNIC ROAD, CHINTHAMANI- 563 125. (INSURER OF TATA SUMO VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-05, P-2709) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 16.03.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1247/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 IN MFA NO. 5339/2014 M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO16, 1ST FLOOR, SBLT BUILDING, POLYTECHNIC ROAD, CHINTHAMANI-25. REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHIK BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . S.M.SRINIVASA REDDY S/O MUNIYAPPA, CHOWDAREDDY PALYA, CHINTHAMANI, KOLAR-25. 2 . M.G.GAGAN S/O LATE M.V.GOPALA REDDY AGE:9 YEARS, 3 . M.G.MONISHA D/O LATE M.V.GOPALA REDDY, AGE:11 YEARS, 4 . M.G.CHAITHANYA D/O LATE M.V.GOPALA REDDY AGE: 13 YEARS, 5 . K.C.NAGALAKSHMI W/ LATE M.V.GOPALA REDDY, AGE:35 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2,3,4 ARE MINORS AS SUCH THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER K.C NAGALAKSHMI. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.32, 2ND CROSS, MANNORAYANAPALYA, PAPAYYA REDDY LAYOUT, SULTHAN PALYA, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE- 32. 6 . VENKATARAMANA REDDY, S/O LATE NARAYANA GOWDA, AGE:77 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUTTAKADAHALLI, CHINTHAMANI. 7 . AKKALAMMA, W/O VENKATARAMANA REDDY, AGE 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUTTAKADAHALLI , CHINTHAMANI. (SINCE DECEASED R7 DIED, R2 TO R6 ARE LR'S OF R7) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6, VIDE ORDER DATED 25.11.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.3.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1247/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE 18TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.12,54,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CAV COMMON JUDGMENT Both of these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 22nd March 2014, passed by the XVIII Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT-IV, Bengaluru (SCCH-4), (for short, `the Tribunal'), in MVC.No.1247/2007; MFA.No.5339/2014 is filed by the insurer and MFA.No.3500/2015 is filed by the claimant. Since Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 25.01.2007, at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased Gopal Reddy while returning from Chintamani to his village Muttakadahalli on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04-V-7638, met with an accident near - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 Paramachanahalli village, by a TATA Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05-P-2709 (for short, `offending vehicle'), driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the impact, the said M.Gopala Reddy sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries. The younger brother of the deceased Gopala Reddy, by name, Naga Reddy (PW-4) lodged the complaint to police in this regard. The police of Chintamani Rural Police Station registered the crime, investigated and submitted final report against driver of offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. It is further case of the claimants that the deceased was aged 30 years, he was an agriculturist, running a finance and also engaged in real estate business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants being his minor children, wife and parents, were dependent upon his earnings. With these reasons, claimants prayed to award compensation of Rs.25 lakhs. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Both have appeared before the Tribunal and filed their respective written statement. 6. Respondent No.1 in his written statement denied all the contentions of the claimants. He also contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself and that the driver of the offending vehicle was not at all responsible for the accident. He has further contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and in the event of awarding of the compensation, respondent No.2 be directed to pay the same. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. Respondent No.2-insurer in its written statement, denied the contents of the claim petition. It has denied its liability to pay compensation and also contended that its liability was restricted to the terms and conditions of policy - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle. 8. It also contended that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04-V- 7638, were necessary parties. It has further contended that the amount of compensation claimed was excessive and disproportionate. With these reasons, respondent No.2-insurer prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 9. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 10. Claimants to prove their case, examined seven witnesses as PW-1 to PW-7 and marked 25 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-25. The respondent No.2 examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked Exs.R-1 to R-5. 11. The Tribunal after hearing the arguments of both the parties and considering the materials available on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 record, by the impugned judgment and award, partly allowed the claim petition and directed respondent No.2 to pay the compensation of Rs.12,54,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The same is challenged by both the insurer, as well as the claimants, in the above appeals. 12. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 13. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has not assessed the income of the deceased properly; The deceased had an agricultural land to an extent of around 26 acres; He was also engaged in sericulture and was earning an income of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month from of the same; In addition, he was engaged in real estate business and was also running a finance business, thereby earning substantial income from these sources; The claimants have produced sufficient materials in this regard; However, the Tribunal has not considered the same and instead, assessed the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. 14. He further contended that, as held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Pranay Sethi1, the future prospects of the deceased was not considered while assessing the income; The deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident, therefore, Tribunal ought to have added 40% of his income towards future prospects. 15. It is further contented that the amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads are also on the lower side; The Tribunal has not considered the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), and also in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited -vs- Nanu Ram & Others2 . Considering the said points, learned counsel for the 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 2018 ACJ 2782 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 claimants submitted that the amount of compensation be enhanced. 16. The learned counsel for the insurer contended that, according to the FIR, an unknown vehicle hit the said motorcycle, which was being ridden by the deceased Gopal Reddy. The claimants have not examined any eye witnesses to prove the involvement of the vehicle. These facts were not at all considered by the Tribunal. 17. Learned counsel has further contended that the Tribunal earlier had dismissed the claim petition, and that was challenged by the claimants before this Court in MFA.No.8777/2008 and by the order dated 19.11.2012, the said appeal was allowed and matter was remanded to the Tribunal to enable the claimants to examine the eye witnesses to prove the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle. After remand of the matter, the claimants have examined three witnesses as PWs.5 to 7. In their cross-examination, they have stated that they had - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 not seen the accident and had reached the spot after the accident. Therefore, their evidence also do not assist the claimants in proving the involvement of the vehicle. These facts indicate that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case merely for the purpose of claiming compensation from respondent No.2. The Tribunal had not considered the contentions of the insurer. With these reasons, learned counsel for the insurer prays to allow the appeal, by setting aside the impugned judgment and award. 18. In reply, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that, while claiming compensation under the motor vehicle claim petitions, it is not necessary to prove the fact of accident beyond all reasonable doubt. The standard of proof required to prove involvement of the vehicle in motor vehicle compensation claim petitions and criminal cases are different. In motor vehicle claim petitions, it is to be proved on the basis of principles of preponderance of probability. It is further contended that, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 in most of the cases, there may not be an eye witness to the incident and the claimants might be unable to examine the eye witnesses for various reasons. Even if examined, there were chances that they might not support the case of the claimants, though they might have stated involvement of the vehicle before the concerned police officers. 19. He further contended that in this case, on the basis of complaint given by the younger brother of the deceased, a criminal case was registered by the police. The police officer investigated the matter, and it came to the knowledge of the concerned police officer that a witness, who was travelling in the said vehicle, had been examined by the Investigating Officer. It found that the said vehicle was involved in the accident and that due to the rash and negligent driving of the TATA sumo vehicle by its driver, the accident had occurred. The said materials are sufficient to prima facie believe the case of claimants. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 20. Learned counsel further contended that, even though the driver was charge sheeted, he did not challenge the said charge sheet. Neither the owner nor the insurer have challenged the said charge sheet laid against the driver of the offending vehicle and they cannot challenge the same before the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, and submits that the contentions of insurer is not sustainable. 21. In support of his contentions, he relied on following judgments: (i) Suhagrani and others -vs- Manager Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., 3 (ii) M/s.ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., -vs- Smt.Bharthi S. Reddy and others,4 (iii) Mangla Ram -vs- Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others,5 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1416 4 ILR 2016 KAR 55 (DB) 5 (2018) 5 SCC 656 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 (iv) Anita Sharma and others -vs- New India Assurance Company Limited and another,6 (v) Sunita and others -vs- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others,7 (vi) Meera Bai and others -vs- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., and another,8 (vii) Ranjeet and another -vs- Abdul Kayam Neb and another,9 (viii) Sajeena Ikhbal and others -vs- Mini Babu George and others,10 (ix) Mallamma -vs- Balaji and others,11 (x) National Insurance Company Limited - vs- Pranay Sethi and others,12 (xi) Magma General Insurance Company Limited -vs- Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others,13 6 (2021) 1 SCC 171 7 (2020) 13 SCC 486 8 2025 SCC OnLine SC 992 9 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497 10 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883 11 ILR 2003 KAR 493 12 (2017) 16 SCC 680 13 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 With the abovesaid submissions, he prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurer and to allow the appeal filed by the claimants. 22. The following points needs consideration : (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05-P-2709 by its driver? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement? (iii) What order? Point No.1 : 23. The consistent contentions of the claimants are that, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the TATA Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05-P-2709 by its driver. Though this fact was not seriously disputed in the written statement by both the respondents but during course of the trial, the insurer has contended that in the FIR, vehicle number was not at all mentioned, and it was stated as an unknown vehicle and there was no evidence to prove that accident occurred due - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 to the involvement of the said vehicle. On that basis, contended to dismiss the claim petition. 24. It appears, initially the insurer was able to persuade the Tribunal; Accordingly, the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 4th April 2008, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that the accident occurred by the involvement of the offending vehicle. That was challenged before Division Bench of this Court in MFA.No.8777/2008. After hearing both the parties, this Court, vide its judgment and award dated 19th November 2012, allowed MFA.No.8777/2008 and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal dated 4th April 2008 and matter was remanded to the Tribunal with direction to permit both the parties to lead additional evidence, if any, and after giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties to put forth their contention, to decide the matter on merits. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 25. After remand of the matter, the claimants have examined PWs.5 to 7 and marked Exs.P-18 to P-25. Similarly, insurer examined one more witness as RW-2 and marked Exs.R-3 to R-5. The Tribunal after rehearing the matter, vide its judgment and award dated 22nd March 2014, allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,54,000/-. That is challenged in the present appeals. 26. PW-1 is claimant No.4 and widow of the deceased Gopal Reddy. In her evidence, she has reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she had not witnessed the accident. Admittedly, PW-2 to PW-4 were examined to prove the income of the deceased, but they were not eye witnesses to the accident. 27. PW-5 is the younger brother of the deceased, and after receiving the information of the accident, he went to Government Hospital, Chintamani, wherein said - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 Gopal Reddy was brought after the accident. By the time he visited the hospital, the said Gopal Reddy was no more and thereafter, he gave a complaint to the police station, and on that basis, an FIR was registered. 28. PW-6 and PW-7 went to spot of the accident immediately after the accident. According to their evidence, at that time, Gopal Reddy was alive, and on inquiry, said Gopal Reddy informed them about involvement of the TATA Sumo vehicle in the accident. Immediately thereafter, they shifted Gopal Reddy to the Government Hospital, Chintamani. In their cross- examination, both PW-6 and PW-7 have stated that they had not witnessed the accident. 29. The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the claimants have filed an application before the Tribunal to summon the relevant witnesses who had seen the incident, including the Investigating Officer, however, the presence of said eye witnesses could - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 not be secured by the claimants, and hence, they were unable to examine the eye witnesses. On verification of the records of the Tribunal, it was found that such an application was filed by the claimants before the Tribunal. The order sheet reveals that, after examining PWs.5 to 7, the claimants closed their evidence. It is not clear as to whether the other witnesses were summoned by the Tribunal after filing such an application. It is pertinent to note that both the parties did not examine the Investigating Officer before the Tribunal to prove or disprove the case of the claimants. 30. Undisputedly, the Investigating Officer charge sheeted the driver of the offending vehicle for causing the accident in question. The charge sheet revealed that there were two eye witnesses who had seen the accident and had given their statements before the Investigating Officer. On the basis of those statements, the Investigating Officer seized the offending vehicle and on - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 conclusion of the investigation, he has submitted the charge sheet. 31. In the cross-examination of PW-1 or PW-5, it was not brought out that they had any relationship with respondent No.1 or driver of the offending vehicle. It was also not brought out from the circumstances that there was any collusion between claimants and respondent No.1, and on that account, the claimants have falsely implicated the offending vehicle. In addition to that, neither driver nor owner or insurer have challenged the said charge sheet before an appropriate forum. Looking at the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, merely the vehicle number was not mentioned in the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the involvement of the vehicle. 32. Undisputedly, PW-5, was not an eye witness to the incident. He lodged the complaint on the basis of the information he received from others about the accident. He was unaware of vehicle number and hence stated in - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 the complaint that, by an unknown vehicle, accident occurred. Only on that basis or absence of vehicle number in the complaint lodged by a hearsay witness, it cannot be held that the said vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. 33. The competent authority to investigate a criminal offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure has investigated the crime, collected the materials and charge sheeted the concerned driver for causing the accident in question. There are no sufficient materials to discard the said materials to deny the claim of claimants. 34. Both RW-1 and RW-2 are not eye witnesses to the incident; they are officials of the insurance company. They had not brought out any facts to rebut the evidence of the claimants and also to show that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case. 35. In the case of Suhagrani and others, (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the charge sheet, as - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 well as evidence of the pillion rider, held that there were sufficient materials to believe that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver of that case. 36. In the case of M/s.ICICI Lombard GIC Limited - vs- Bharti S Reddy, (referred supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that the charge sheet filed by the jurisdictional police is a conclusive proof of accident, if same was not questioned or challenged by the insurer. 37. In the case of Mangla Ram -vs- Oriental Insurance Company Limited (referred supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, standard of proof required in third party claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not same as in criminal proceedings. The Tribunals function was to determine fair compensation in the event an accident has taken place due to the negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal stricto sensu is not bound by the pleadings. Holistic view required of entire - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 pleadings and evidence by applying principles of preponderance of probabilities. Strict proof of accident by particular vehicle in particular manner is not required and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied. 38. In the case of Anita Sharma and others -vs- New India Assurance Company Limited and another, (referred supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, if owner-cum- driver of offending vehicle was setting up a defence plea that accident was a result of not his, but carelessness or rashness of driver of another vehicle, which was coming from opposite side and collided with a car, then the onus was on the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle to step into witness box and explain as to how the accident had taken place. The fact that owner-cum-driver choose not to depose in support of what he has pleaded in his written statement, further suggests that he himself was at fault. It also held that, High Court, therefore, ought not to have shifted the burden of proof on the claimant. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 39. In the case of Sunita and others -vs- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others (referred supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "non-examination of the witnesses per se cannot be treated as fatal to claim set up before the Tribunal. Approach in examining the evidence in accidental claim cases is not to find fault with non-examination of some best eye witnesses in the case, but to analyse the evidence already on record to ascertain whether that is sufficient to answer the matters in issue on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Approach of Tribunals should be holistic analysis of entire pleadings and absence by applying principles of preponderance of probability. Once, foundational fact, namely, actual occurrence of accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate quantum of just compensation if accident had taken place by reason of negligence of driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, Tribunal would not be strictly bound by pleadings of parties." - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 40. In the case of Meera Bai and others -vs- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., and another (referred supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, " As far as examining the eye witnesses, such a witness will not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be no finding that negligence was not established. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the High Court must be set aside and that of the Tribunal restored. We do not speak on the quantum, since there is no appeal filed by the claimants against the quantum as determined by the Tribunal. 41. In the case of Ranjeet and another -vs- Abdul Kayam Neb and another (referred supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, it is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 to prove the death of the deceased due to the negligence of the bus driver. 42. In the abovesaid judgments relied by the learned counsel for the claimants, it is consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, in case of the motor vehicle claim petitions, strict rule of evidence is not applicable and the Tribunals have to apply a holistic view to the facts of each case and decide the compensation. The Tribunal shall consider the evidence already available on record, including the charge sheet submitted by the concerned police officers and the evidence of the witnesses examined by the claimants, to determine negligence and decide the compensation. The standard of proof required to prove negligence in a criminal trial is entirely different from that of in motor vehicle claim petitions. In the latter, the facts are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the claimants have produced the charge sheet and its enclosures, which revealed that the accident - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 occurred due to the collusion between the motorcycle and TATA Sumo vehicle and there were damages to both the vehicles. FIR was lodged within a short period after the accident and investigation was commenced. 43. Prior to death of Gopal Reddy, he told to PWs-6 and 7 that TATA Sumo hit his vehicle and caused the accident. Thereafter, during the investigation, the police officer recorded the statements of the inmates of the said TATA Sumo and arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Sumo by its driver. Undisputedly in the said accident, said Gopal Reddy sustained injuries and when he was brought to the hospital for treatment, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. These are sufficient to believe that accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the TATA Sumo. 44. The main grievance of the insurer is that vehicle number was not mentioned in the FIR and later the said - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 TATA Sumo vehicle was falsely implicated. Onus to prove the said facts is on the respondents. The respondent No.1 who is the owner of the vehicle did not enter the witness box, though he denied the accident. He has also not examined the driver of the offending vehicle to substantiate his contentions. It is worth to note that, respondent has not denied the accident, but denied that, it was due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. Even no such contentions were taken by the insurer in its written statement. Hence, the said ground is not available to respondents. 45. The respondent No.2 did not produce proper rebuttal evidence. Both RW-1 and RW-2 are not eye witnesses to the incident and whatever evidence they provided was solely on the basis of the FIR. The charge sheet contradicts the contentions of the respondents. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merits in the contentions of the insurer to interfere in the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 negligence of driver of the TATA Sumo vehicle. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative. Point No.2 : 46. The second question is regarding assessment of the compensation. According to the claim petitioners, the deceased was money lender, engaged in finance business, in addition to running a real estate business. He was also doing agriculture and was earning, as per column No.6, Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimant i.e., PW-1 in her evidence has stated that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture and Rs.30,000/- per month from the sale of cocoons. 47. PW-2 in his evidence has stated that the deceased Gopal Reddy was earning Rs.30,000/- per month from silkworm rearing and sale of cocoons. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 PW-3 has stated that deceased was cultivating his lands and earning Rs.10,000/- per month by reaping crops five times in a year. PW-4 is said to be vegetable merchant and according to his evidence, Gopal Reddy used to sell beans worth Rs.60,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per yield and tomato worth Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/- per yield. 48. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 regarding income of the deceased is not consistent. It has inflated from witness to witness, which is far beyond the pleadings of the claimants. The claimants on oath have stated in their pleadings before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from agriculture, money lending, and real estate business. During the course of trial, the claimants have given up on the earnings of the deceased from money lending, as well as real estate business and finance. They mostly concentrated on the earnings of the deceased from agriculture and sericulture. - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 However, the income from sericulture was not at all pleaded by the claimants. 49. The RTCs. produced by the claimants are not standing in the name of the deceased and on the contrary, they are standing in the name of father of the deceased i.e., claimant No.5. Considering the materials available on record, at the most, the deceased might have assisted his father in cultivating the lands, and engaging in sericulture. Therefore, any income earned from the agricultural lands would belong to claimant No.5. For the sake of convenience, even if it is believed that, the lands were standing in the name of claimant No.5 and the deceased was cultivating it and retaining entire income earned from the same, then also, it is not the case of the claimants that, after the death of Gopal Reddy, they have sold the property, or they are not cultivating the same. At the most, they might have engaged a servant to cultivate the said lands or supervise the said lands. - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 50. In the judgment relied by the claimants in the case Suhagrani and others (referred supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "even if it is accepted that the deceased was earning income from agricultural operations, such income is not lost due to his death. The agricultural land continue to remain with the claimants, and at the most, the claimants would only be entitled to supervision charges that they may have to incur in carrying out the agricultural operations." The principles held in the said judgment can be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 51. Deceased was aged about 30 years, and he was said to be hale and healthy. Therefore, considering these facts, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. The said income determined by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 52. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (referred supra), and Magma General insurance Co. Ltd., - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 (referred supra), for assessment of the compensation. As per the law laid in the case of Pranay Sethi (referred supra), even if the deceased is self-employed, then future prospects has to be considered. In this case, age of the deceased was 30 years. Therefore, 30% of his income has to be added to his income towards future prospects. 53. Undisputedly, the multiplier applicable in this case is `17'. There are five dependents to the deceased i.e., three minor children, widow and parents. Therefore, as per the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and others,14 and in the case of Pranay Sethi (referred supra), 1/4th of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal expenses. On the basis of the said figures, the amount of compensation is re-calculated under the head `loss of dependency'. 54. Similarly, following the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (referred supra), as well as in the case 14 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 of and Magma General insurance Co. Ltd., (referred supra), the amount of compensation under the conventional heads is awarded. 55. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency (Rs.8,000/-+40% x 12x17x3/4 17,13,600/- Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- x 5 2,00,000/- Loss to the estate 15,000/- Towards funeral expenses 15,000/- Total Less : Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement - Rounded off - 19,43,600/- 12,54,000/- _________ 6,89,000/- 6,90,000/- 56. The claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 57. Undisputedly, the respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are liable to pay the said amount. 58. for the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) MFA.No.5339/2014 is dismissed and MFA.No.3500/2015 is allowed in-part. ii) The judgment and award dated 22nd March 2014, in MVC.No.1247/2007, passed by the XVIII Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT-IV, Bengaluru (SCCH-4), stands modified; iii) The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,90,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33194 MFA No. 3500 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5339 of 2014 v) The remaining portion of the award with respect to apportionment, deposit and release of the amount are as ordered by the Tribunal. vi) Draw award accordingly. vii) Whatever amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M. ADIGA) JUDGE BK : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1