- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR IN M.F.A CROB NO. 100124 OF 2019 IN M.F.A No.101076/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.GOURAMMA W/O. KANTESH KURUGODAPPANAVAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: WAGISHNAGAR, 7TH CROSS, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 2. SRI. KIRAN S/O KANTESH KURUGODAPPANAVAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE, R/O: WAGISHNAGAR, 7TH CROSS, RANEBENNUR, M.F.A CROB NO. 100124 OF 2019 (MV-D) In M.F.A No.101076/2017 (MV) C/W M.F.A NO. 103137 OF 2016 (MV-I), M.F.A NO. 103178 OF 2016 (MV-I), M.F.A NO. 101076 OF 2017 (MV) Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. …CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. G S HULMANI,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, E-8 EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022. 2. RAIYAJAHAMAD S/O NASIRUDDIN MUVAZZAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: INDIRA NAGAR, AT POST: HANGAL, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KAYAKMATH,ADVOCATE FOR R-1 NOTICE SERVED WITH R-2) THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.101076/2017 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1047/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER IN M.F.A NO.103137 OF 2016: BETWEEN: SANJAY S/O MAHADEVAPPA. BELUR AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER SATRUN INDUSTRIES, BANGLORE, R/O C/O YELLANAGOUDA. N. PATIL A/POST JODALLI TQ: KALAGHATAAGI DIST:DHARWAD (PETITIONER IN THE TRIAL COURT) (APPELLANT BEFORE THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S NAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RIYAJAHMAD S/O NASIRUDDIN MUVAZZAN AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O INDIRANAGARA POST:HANGAL DIST:HAVERI 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD CTS NO:477/1M-1, 1ST FLOOR, V.A.KALBURGI HALLMARK, HALLMARK BUILDING DESAI CROSS, PINTO ROAD HUBALLI-580020 3. KANTESH. KURUGODAPPANANAVAR, AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS R/O. VAGEESH NAGAR, 7TH CROSS, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER KESHWAPRU, KUSUGAR ROAD HUBALLI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. K KAYAKMATH ADV FOR R-2 NOTICE SERVED WITH R-1 NOTICE TO R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH SRI S V YAJI ADV FOR R-4 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.813/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. MACT, HUBBALLI (ITENARARY COURT AT KALAGHATAGI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN M.F.A NO. 103178 OF 2016: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, CTS NO.477/1M, 1ST FLOOR, V.A. KALBURGI HALLMARK, HALLMARK BUILDING, DESAI CROSS, PINTO ROAD, HUBALLI-580020. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. NO. 5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S V ARCADE BELEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD OFF. BENNURUGHATTA ROAD, IIMB POST, BANGLORE - 560076 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S K KAYAKMATH,ADVOCATE) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER AND: 1. SANJAY S/O MAHADEVAPPA BELUR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC:ENGINEER SATURN INDUSTRIES, BANGLORE, R/O C/O: YELLANAGOUDA N. PATIL, A/POST:JODALLI, TALUK:KALAGHATAGI, DIST:DHARWAD. 2. RIYAJAHMAD S/O NASIRUDDIN MUVAZZAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: INDIRANAGAR, A/POST: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REG NO. MH 12/FZ-7708). 3. KANTESH. KURUGODAPPANANAVAR, AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS R/O VAGEESH NAGAR, DIST:HAVERI (L.R. OF OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO. KA 27/EA 9630) 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD KESHWAPRU, KUSUGAR ROAD, HUBALLI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S N BANAKAR ADV FOR R-1 NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH SRI S V YAJI ADVOCATE FOR R-4 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:13.05.2016, PASSED IN MVC.NO.813/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI (ITINERARY COURT AT KALAGHATAGI), AWARDING THE COMPENSATION - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER OF RS.2,85,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. IN M.F.A NO. 101076 OF 2017 BETWEEN: THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, E-8 EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED RESPONDENT SIGNATORY, …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S K KAYAKMATH,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOURAMMA W/O KANTESH KURUGODAPPANAVAR, AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O WAGISHNAGAR, RANEBENNUR-541115 2. KIRAN S/O KANTESH KURUGODAPPANAVAR, AGE: 23, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: WAGISHNAGAR, 7TH CROSS RANEBENNUR-541115 3. RIAYAJAHAMAD S/O NASIRUDDIN MUVAZZAN, INDIRA NAGR, AT POSSESSION: HANGAL, TALUK:HANGAL, DIST:HAVERI (OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO. MH-12/FZ-7708) PIN - 581110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G S HULMANI ADV FOR C/R-1-2 NOTICE SERVED WITH R-3) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:05.12.2016 IN MVC NO.1047/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.27,78,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS MFA CROB AND APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) These three appeals and Cross-Objection arise out of a single motor vehicle accident that took place on 23.3.2014 at 5.00 p.m. when the deceased Keerthi as a rider of motor bike bearing Regn.No.KA-27/EA-9630 along with pillion rider injured by name Sanjay S/o. Mahadevappa Belur the appellant in MFA No.103137/2016 were moving from Bangalore side and when they came near Bhuvanahalli Gate Over Bridge, a lorry bearing Regn.No.MH-12/FZ-7708 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER dashed to the said motor vehicle in which Keerthi died on the spot and Sanjay the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries on his person. 2. The dependents of deceased Keerthi filed the claim petition before the Senior Judge and Addl. MACT, Ranebennur (in short `the Tribunal’) in MVC No.1047/2014 which was decided on 5.12.2016 whereas, the injured Sanjay Mahadevappa Belur filed his claim petition seeking compensation in MVC No.813/2014 on the file of III Addl. Sr.Civil Judge and Addl.MACT, Hubblli in concurrent charge of Sr.Civil Judge, Kalaghatagi (in short `the Tribunal’) and the said claim petition was decided by the Tribunal on 13.5.2016. Both the petitions were allowed by the respective Tribunals. 3. The Insurer of offending lorry bearing Regn.No.MH-12/FZ-7708 has filed MFA No.101076/2017 and in the said case, the mother and brother of deceased of Keerthi have filed MFA Crob.No.100124/2019 and MFA No. 103137/2016 is filed by the injured-pillion rider of motor - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER bike seeking enhancement in compensation whereas, respondent no.2 insurer has filed MFA No.103178/2016 challenging the quantum and liability. As all the claim petitions arise out of a single accident, with the consent of both the side, all these appeals are taken up for disposal together and common judgment is passed. The details of the same are indicated in the following table: Sl. No. MVC Case MFA/MFA.CROB Before this Court Status of the Party before Tribunal Tribunal before which claim came to be settled 1. MVC No.1047/14 MFA.CROB No.100124/2019 Claimants (for death of Sri Keerthi) Addl.Sr.Civil Judge & Addl.MACT, Ranebennur 2. MVC No.1047/14 MFA No.101076/2017 Insurer- Shriram General Insurance Co., Addl.Sr.Civil Judge & Addl.MACT, Ranebennur 3. MVC No.813/14 MFA No.103137/2016 Claimant- Injured-Sanjay M.Belur(Pillion rider) III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Hubballi (itinerary Court at Kalaghatagi) - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER 4. MVC No.813/14 MFA NO.103178/2016 Insurer – Shriram General Insurance Co. III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Hubballi (itinerary Court at Kalaghatagi) 4. MVC No.1047/2014 was initially filed by three claimants being the parents and brother of deceased Keerthi, but, during the pendency of claim petition before the Tribunal, claimant no.1 i.e., father of Keerthi died and accordingly, cause-title came to be amended. The claimant no.2 and 3 in the said petition prosecuted the petition. 5. The facts with regard to the accident in all these appeals is one and the same which is setout as under: That on 23.3.2014 at 5.00 a.m. when deceased Keerthi as a rider of Motor bike bearing Regn.No. KA-27/EA- 9630 along with pillion rider Sanjay M. Belur were traveling towards Hiriyur on National Highway No.4, at that time, when they came near Bhuvanahalli Gate Over bridge, it is alleged that, driver of Lorry bearing Regn.No. MH-12/FZ- - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER 7708 dashed to the motor bike from behind and because of that, they fell down. Keerthi sustained grievous injuries on his person and died on the spot, whereas, pillion rider Sanjay M. Belur sustained grievous injuries. 6. Sofar as claimants in MVC No.1047/2014, they contend that, the dead body of deceased was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Sira where the post-mortem examination was conducted. The claimants have spent more than Rs.80,000/- for completion of legal formalities and funeral ceremony. All the claimants were fully depending upon the income of the deceased as he was the only bread earner in the family. Because of his untimely death, the claimants are put to mental sufferance and also deprived of his income so also suffering physically. Therefore, claimants prayed to award the compensation as prayed in the petition. They further contended that, the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per month as he was working as Designer in Saturn Industries, Bengaluru and now the claimants are deprived of the said income. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER 7. Sofar as claimant in MVC No.813/2014, on the file of MACT, Kalaghatagi, contends that, in the said accident, he sustained closed fracture on the shaft of left femur, type – 2 open fracture of proximal III of both the bones of left leg. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Govt.Hospital, Sira and thereafter, he was taken to Bharathi Hospital, Tumakuru, where he took treatment as in-patient till 29.3.2014. During that, period, he underwent surgery. He claims that he had spent more than Rupees one lakh towards medical and other expenses. Even after discharge from the hospital, he is taking conservative treatment in private hospitals. He still has to undergo further surgeries for removal of implants. According to him, he was an Engineer working with Saturn Industries, Bengaluru and getting salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. Now he is permanently disabled and was compelled to quit his job. Therefore, he avers that, as the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending truck, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER 8. Before the Tribunal in MVC No.1047/2014, both the respondents appeared and resisted the petition by filing detailed objection statements contending that, the said accident has taken place not because of any rash and negligent driving of alleged offending truck. It is contended that, deceased was not earning Rs.40,000/- per month. They dispute his age, avocation, earnings and accidental injuries on the person of the deceased. According to respondent no.1, he is not liable to pay any compensation as the said vehicle is insured with respondent no.2. Whereas, respondent no.2 contends that, the said accident has not taken place as alleged by the claimants and the said offending vehicle was falsely implicated so as to get the compensation. In the alternative, it is contended that, when the deceased Keerthi was riding the motor bike along with pillion rider Sanjay towards Tumkur, at that time, he suddenly stopped the vehicle and because of the same, the said accident has took place as the lorry went and dashed to the said motor bike from its behind. Therefore, no rash and negligence can be attributed against the driver of the said - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER offending vehicle. It is further contended that, more so, the driver of the said offending vehicle was not holding effective driving licence and thereby, there is violation of policy conditions by respondent no.1 entrusting the said vehicle to drive the vehicle that was not possessing the valid driving licence. The claim so made by claimants is highly excessive and cannot be granted. Thus, it is prayed by the respondents to dismiss this claim petitions. 9. Sofar as MVC No.813/2014 is concerned, there are four respondents arrayed. To the said petition respondent nos. 2 and 4 only have filed their objection statements. Respondent no.2 specifically denies the said accident, avocation, income of the injured, sustaining of injuries by him etc,. As contended in the aforesaid petition, the entire case of the claimant is denied by this respondent no.2 in this petition. It is contended that, claimant is put to strict proof of allegations made by him with regard to the said accident sustaining of injuries by him, the so called disability, his profession as an Engineer, spending of money - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER towards medical expenses, taking treatment at Bharathi Hospital as inpatient and also treatment from various Hospitals. It is contended that, claim so made by claimant is highly excessive. In the similar terms, respondent no.4 the Regional Manager of National Insurance Company Ltd., being the insurer of motor bike denies contents of claim petition and specifically contends that, the amount claimed by the petitioner is imaginary and exaggerated. The said accident has took place because of rash and negligent driving of the truck and not by the rider of the motor bike in any manner. The claim petition is not maintainable against this insurer-R4. Amongst other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 10. Sofar as respondent nos.1 and 3 are concerned, they have not chosen to file any objection statement. 11. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the learned respective Tribunals framed relevant issues. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER 12. To substantiate the case of the claimants in MVC No.1047/2014, claimant no.2 Gouramma, the mother of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 and also examined one eye witness Prabhudeva S/o. Nagaraj as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.11 and closed claimants’ evidence. None of the respondents led any evidence in this case. Whereas, in MVC No.813/2014, the claimant himself entered the witness box as PW.1 and also examined Dr.Ravikumar as PW.2 and another witness Anil Surendra Kurkuri as PW.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P76 and closed claimant’s evidence. In this petition also, none of the respondents chose to lead any evidence except marking of Insurance Policy at Ex.R1 with consent. 13. The learned respective Tribunals on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, awarded the compensation in both the petitions as under: In MVC No. 1047/2014 (Death of Keerthi) Sl. No. Heads Amount Rs. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER 1. Loss of Dependency 27,13,500/- 2. Towards Transportation & Funeral Expenses 20,000/- 3. Loss of Estate 30,000/- 4. Towards Love and Affection to Petitioner No.3 15,000/- Total 27,78,500/- In MVC No.813/2014 (Injury case- Sanjay) Sl. No. Heads Amount In Rs. 1. Medical Expenses 1,35,000/- 2. Conveyance and special diet and attendant charges 10,000/- 3. Loss of income during the course of treatment 40,000/- 4. Pain and Sufferings 50,000/- 5. Loss of future amenities 50,000/- Total 2,85,000/- 14. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the compensation so awarded, now the claimants in both these petitions are before this Court challenging the said judgments and awards and have sought enhancement of compensation, whereas, respondent no.2-Insurer in both the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER petitions filed their respective appeals as aforesaid challenging the quantum and liability. Sofar as respondent no.4 in MVC No.813/2014 is concerned, so also other respondents in both the claim petitions have not preferred any appeal. 15. The learned counsel for the claimants being the appellants in the respective appeals submits that, because of rash and negligent driving of offending truck, the said accident has took place. Rightly, the learned Tribunals have held that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending truck. It is their submission that, though the insurer and owner of two- wheeler ridden by deceased Keerthi are arrayed in the said MVC No.813/2014, rightly no liability is saddled on the insurer or the owner. They would submit that, as the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending lorry owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2, fastening liability on respondent nos.1 and 2 and directing respondent no.2 to - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER deposit the compensation is based upon the evidence placed on record. 16. The learned Sri Girish Hulmani, Advocate for the claimants in MVC No.1047/2014 submits that, the Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation and there is no proper assessment of compensation based upon the income of the deceased. Initially he had left three dependents and during the pendency of the claim petition claimant no.1 died and both the claimant nos.2 and 3 were completely depending upon the income of the deceased. He would submit that, the Tribunal has committed illegality in deducting 50% of the income towards his personal expenses and Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses of the deceased. He further submits that, claimant no.2 being the mother has lost her 'love and affection' towards her son who died in the accident, but, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards `loss of consortium’. The Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.40,000/- compensation towards `loss of - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER consortium’ with escalation at 10% in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1, as the said accident has taken place in the year 2014. He would further submits that as the deceased was a Design Engineer, Tribunal ought to have taken the proper income based upon the evidence of PW.2 who has deposed that, deceased was working with said Industry as Design Engineer. He would submit that, the compensation so claimed by the claimants has to be awarded as prayed in the petition. 17. Whereas, the learned counsel for claimant- injured/appellant Sri C.S.Nagashetty would submit that, injured was a Diploma Engineer and working along with the deceased. He was drawing more than Rs.40,000/- per month. Because of fracture sustained by him in the said accident, he has suffered permanent disability. He cannot work as he was working prior to the accident. He would submit that, the doctors who examined him clinically have 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER opined that, there is substantial physical disability sustained by him because of the accidental injuries. He would submit that, whatever the compensation so awarded is on lower side and the Tribunal has not considered his loss of future income due to disability. Therefore, the counsels for both the claimants in both these appeals prayed to allow their respective appeals and enhance the compensation. 18. Per contra, the learned Sri S.K.Kayakmath, Advocate for respondent no.2 in both these appeals disputes the very nature of the injuries suffered by the deceased and injured. He disputes about the avocation of the deceased and injured so also disputes the respective income arrived at by respective Tribunals. He would further submit that, the award so passed by the respective Tribunals is highly excessive, exaggerative and such compensation would not have been awarded by the respective Tribunals. He would further submit that, when the liability itself is disputed and there is no question of awarding any compensation much less claimed by the claimants in both the petitions. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER 19. No argument is advanced by other respondents in all these appeals. 20. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of both the side and perused the records. In view of the rival submissions of both the side, the points that would arise for our consideration are: a) “Whether the claimants-cross objectors/injured-appellant in both the claim petitions are entitled for enhancement in compensation as prayed in their respective appeals? b) Whether respondent no.2-Insurer is absolved from payment of any compensation as contended in the respective appeal memos?” Point Nos.1 and 2 are discussed together: 21. Sofar as accident is concerned; the claimant no.2 in MVC No.1047/2014 has deposed in her evidence categorically that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending lorry by its driver. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER She is not an eye witness to the said accident but, however, relies upon the Police records marked at Ex.P1 to P7. They do suggest that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending lorry against whom the crime was registered and charge sheet was filed. According to FIR, the said offending Lorry came from Hiriyur side and dashed to the motor bike ridden by Keerthi. Due to said accident, Keerthi died on the spot because of accidental injuries. While marking these documents no objections were raised. 22. So also with regard to the said accident, the claimant/injured-Sanjay Belur states in his evidence that, on 23.3.2014, along with deceased Keerthi, he was traveling as a pillion rider towards Ranebennur from Bengaluru. At that time, driver of the offending lorry bearing Regn.No.MH- 12/FZ-7708 driven by its driver in high speed and negligent manner from Tumakur side when they were so moving in front of Bhuvanahalli gate over bridge on Tumakuru-Hiriyur NH-4 dashed to the motor bike and because of that, both the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER rider and pillion rider fell down. The rider sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Whereas, this injured sustained fractures and was admitted to Govt.Hospital, Sira initially, thereafter to Benglauru Hospital. According to the claimants this injured Sanjay Belur was an eye witness to the said accident. He admits in the cross-examination that, the said accident has taken place in the middle of the road. Taking advantage of this admission, with all vehement learned Sri S.K.Kayakmath would submit that, as the deceased was riding the motor bike in the middle of the road therefore, no rashness and negligence on the part of driver of offending lorry can be attributed against him. It is not in dispute that, the said offending lorry driver was charge sheeted by the Police after investigation. On the date of accident itself, the said vehicle was seized by the police and it was subjected to motor vehicle examination. Even the injured claimant has produced various police documents such as panchanama prepared on the date of accident clearly shows about involvement of lorry bearing Regn.No.MH-12/FZ-7708. The said panchanama is marked - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER by the claimant at Ex.P3. It is accompanied with the sketch wherein, it shows that, the said accident has taken place in the middle of left lane road towards Bengaluru. Evidently, the said NH-4 is a six lane road and as the deceased was riding his motor bike in the middle lane, there were no other vehicles coming from opposite direction. Though the lorry driver had sufficient space to move on the left lane by the side of road divider or he must have moved towards right side lane, they would have avoided the accident, but, there is no explanation offered about the situation of the road. The defence of insurance company would have been accepted if it would to be single road. When road was sufficiently wide and there were other two lanes to drive the vehicle like lorry on a particular lane, the driver of the offending lorry would have taken proper steps to avoid the accident by moving towards other lanes which were very much available to him. It is not the case of the insurer or the owner of the lorry or the driver of the said offending vehicle that, ahead of him, at other lanes, the other vehicles were moving. No such evidence is brought on record. Thus, as rightly appreciated - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER by both the Tribunals and evidence of the claimants, so also documents produced by the claimants in both the petitions, do suggest that, the said accident has taken place, because of rash and negligent driving of offending lorry in the manner alleged by the claimants. Rightly, the Tribunals have assessed the evidence and have come to a right conclusion about the said accident. Therefore, such findings attributing rash and negligent driving of offending lorry by both the Tribunals needs no interference. 23. With regard to entitlement of compensation by the claimants, they specifically allege that, the deceased was a Design Engineer and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month from his private job with M/s.Saturn Industries, Bengaluru. To that effect, claimants have produced salary slip as per Ex.P8. On perusal of certificate, it shows that, net salary of claimant was Rs.16,465.80 per month. It was for the month of Feb. 2014 being the last pay slip. PW.2 an official of said Industry had come before the Tribunal and stated about the salary of the deceased. While considering the income of the - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER deceased, the learned Tribunal had taken his monthly income at Rs.16,750/- per month, as the last drawn salary of Rs.16,750/- and rightly the Tribunal has assessed his monthly income at Rs.16,750/-. In view of assessment of the income by the Tribunal as stated supra, as it is the last drawn salary, it requires no interference for any enhancement in the salary. Therefore, the income of the deceased immediately prior to his death is taken at Rs.16,750/- per month. As the deceased was doing the private job in Saturn Industries, as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), to this monthly salary 40% is to be added towards future prospects. i.e., 40% of Rs.16,750/- comes to Rs.6,700/-. Thus, the total salary would be Rs.23,450/- (Rs.16,750/- + Rs.6,700/-). The deceased had left behind him, two dependents who were fully depending upon him and during the pendency of the petition his father died. More so, deceased used to work in Bengaluru a costly city. Therefore, 50% of the salary is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as cost of living is more in a city like Bengaluru. Thus, 50% of - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER Rs.23,450/- comes to Rs.11,725/-. Thus, monthly salary of the deceased would be Rs.11,725/- (Rs.23,450/- – Rs.11,725/-). As the deceased was aged 24 years, the proper multiplier i.e., applicable is `18’. Thus, the compensation towards `Loss of Dependency’ would be Rs.25,32,600/- (Rs.11,725/- x 12 months x 18 multiplier). This would be the `Loss of Dependency’. 24. As stated supra, claimant no.1 father of the deceased died during the pendency of the claim petition and claimant no.2 is the mother of the deceased. She has lost her earning son, so also lost his 'love and affection'. Therefore, towards `loss of consortium’ to claimant no.2 as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi supra, she is entitled for `loss of consortium’ Rs.40,000/- with escalation at 20% as the accident has taken place in the year 2014. Thus, she is entitled for consortium with 20% of Rs.40,000/- = Rs.8,000/-) i.e., Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000 + Rs.8000/-). Likewise claimant no.3 is the brother of deceased and has lost his brother’s love and - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER affection towards him. Therefore, he is also entitled for `loss of consortium’ which is calculated at Rs.40,000/- + 20% escalation as stated supra i.e., Rs.48,000/-. 25. With regard to conventional heads, towards funeral expenses, loss of estate, the claimant nos. 2 and 3 are entitled for 15,000/- each with escalation of 20% as because the accident has taken place in the year 2014. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for compensation as per the tabulation below: Sl. No. Heads Amount Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency 25,32,600-00 2. Loss of consortium to claimants 2 & 3 96,000-00 3. Funeral Expenses 18,000-00 4. Loss of Estate 18,000-00 Total 26,64,600.00 Rounded off to Rs.26,65,000/- - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER 26. Thus, claimant nos.2 and 3 (Cross-objectors) in MFA.Crob. No.100124/19 are held entitled for total compensation of Rs.26,65,000/- as against Rs.27,78,500/- thereby reduction in compensation at Rs.1,13,500/-together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization as against 7% awarded by the Tribunal. 27. Claimant in MVC No.813/2014 who is injured- appellant in MFA No.103137/2016 is concerned, he has sought enhancement in compensation. It is not in dispute between both the parties that, this claimant Sanjay Belur was the pillion rider on the said motor bike, when the accident took place. The claimant relies upon the wound certificate issued by Bharathi Hospital, Shankarapuram, Tumkur showing the description of the injuries. 28. As per the doctor, both the injuries are grievous in nature. The claimant relies upon a document marked at Ex.P9, showing his physical disability because of these accidental injuries. Doctor has opined hat, in view of the injuries so stated, claimant has suffered physical disability - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER to the extent of 23% to 25%. To substantiate the said fact of injuries and physical disability, PW.1 claimant as specifically stated about sustaining of multiple grievous injuries i.e., closed fracture shaft of left femur and type II open fracture of proximal III of both the bones of left leg, so also other injuries all over the body. He states that, because of these accidental injuries, he has been physically disabled permanently. He was in the hospital as in-patient from 23.3.2014 to 29.3.2014 and underwent surgeries. According to him, he has spent more than Rupees 2 lakhs for medicines and other incidental expenses. Even after discharge from hospital, he has taken conservative treatment at various private hospitals. He also require future medical expenses as he has to undergo surgeries for removing implants. 29. He states that, prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and working as Engineer in Saturn Industries, Bengaluru and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Because of these injuries, as he has become physically - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER disabled permanently, he cannot work as he was working prior to the accident. He relied upon various medical records. Though this PW.2 claimant is cross-examined at length but, he withstood the test of cross-examination. To substantiate the plea of permanent disability, he examined PW.2 Dr. Ravikumar A.S. an Orthopedic Surgeon who had examined the claimant and issued the disability certificate. As per the clinical and surgical findings, the claimant "complained of pain over fractured parts, difficulty in bending limb, difficulty in lifting and carrying heavy weight, restrictions in movement, minimal numbness over the lower limbs" and difficulty in performing day to day work. According to him, as per AIMCO guidelines issued by the Government of India, he has assessed permanent disability. He also has noticed physical disability of 30% to the left hip, 25% to the left knee, 15% for ankle and 5% for shortening. Thus, he arrived at disability to the extent of 23 to 25% to the whole body. He also speaks of requirement of two more surgeries to be undergone by the claimant for removal of implants which require Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/-. According - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER to him, he has treated the claimant. Though he has been cross-examined by the insurer, but, he is consistent about the disability suffered by the claimant. 30. PW.3 Anil Kurkuri, an official of the said Industries had come before the Tribunal and deposed that claimant was working at 'Saturn Industries' as an Engineer and was drawing a salary of Rs.30,000/-. Except denial in the cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited. To show his employment with 'Saturn Industries', claimant has produced Ex.P11 showing that, he was appointed as an Engineer by the said Industry during the month of January 2014 and his salary was Rs.30,000/-. This document is not denied by the respondents. 31. The learned Tribunal has assessed the disability to the extent of 8% but, has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income due to disability. The Tribunal only considered the medical expenses, conveyance, special diet, loss of income during laid up period and amenities. The claimant has produced his appointment letter showing his - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER salary a Rs.30,000/-. Out of this amount, certain amount is to be deducted towards income tax as well as professional tax. There is no evidence placed on record that, he has continued with the said service even after the accident. Therefore, as per the income tax slab for the assessment year 2013-14, the income tax is upto Rs.2,00,000/- there is no income tax, From Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- 10% of the amount exceeding Rs.2,00,000/- that means for Annual income of claimant is Rs.3,60,000/-, tax is o be levied on Rs.1,60,000/- i.e., remainder. It comes to Rs.16,000/-. Thus, Rs.3,60,000 – 16,000/- = Rs.3,44,000/- from this, Rs.200/- per month towards professional tax is to be deducted which comes to Rs.2,400/-. Therefore, the total salary of the claimant would be Rs.3,41,600/-. In view of the treatment taken by the claimant in a reputed hospital, so also the age of injuries, as he was 30 years of age at the time of accident, by his time, injury must have been healed considerably. There must have been reduction in percentage of disability. Therefore, in view of the medical records, as well as the evidence brought on record with regard to - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER physical condition of the claimant, if disability is assessed at 8% to the whole body, it would meet the ends of justice. 32. The Tribunal though had come to the conclusion that, claimant had suffered 8% of physical disability and observed so in the judgment, but, has not awarded any compensation towards `loss of future income’ due to physical disability. Therefore, it is just and proper to assess the same as the claimant has challenged the said finding of not awarding any compensation towards disability. 33. Total annual income is assessed at Rs.3,41,600/- and disability is assessed at 8%. It comes to Rs.27,328/-. As the claimant was aged 30 years, the proper multiplier as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.2 applicable is `17’ which comes to Rs.4,64,576/- (Rs.27,328/- x 17 multiplier). The Tribunal has awarded medical expenses at Rs.1,35,000/- based upon the medical 2 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER records, and has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards special diet, conveyance, attendant charges and also awarded Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of income during treatment period', so also 'pain and suffering' at Rs.50,000/- and 'loss of amenities' to be enjoyed in life at Rs.50,000/-. In our considered opinion, he Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation towards the aforesaid conventional heads which do not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount In Rs. 1. Loss of future income due to disability 4,64,576/- 2. Medical Expenses 1,35,000/- 3. Loss of amenities in life 50,000/- 4. Special Diet & Attendant charges 10,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid-up period 40,000/- 6. Pain and Suffering 50,000/- Total 7,49,576/- 34. Thus, claimant in MFA No. 103137/2016 is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,49,576/- as - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER against Rs.2,85,000/- thereby there is enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,64,576/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization as against 8% awarded by the Tribunal. 35. It is held that the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2. There is no evidence placed on record by the respondent-Insurer that, there is violation of any policy conditions. Even the Tribunal has held that, insurer has failed to prove the violation of policy conditions. The policy in respect of the offending lorry was valid and in force at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal while discussing with regard to the liability to pay the compensation, in para.12 of the judgment has observed that, the Insurance Company has not taken any steps by issuing notice to the owner or the driver of the offending lorry to know that whether the driver of the said offending lorry was possessing the effective driving licence, thereby, it is observed that in view of non-taking such steps - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER and lack of cogent and positive evidence from the insurer, the liability has to be fastened on the owner as well as Insurer of the said offending vehicle. In support of this finding, the learned Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Fahim Ahmad v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.3,. In view of the ratio laid down in the said judgment, as well as the fact so pleaded by the respondents, we do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in giving such findings. Therefore, liability to pay the compensation so awarded in both these claim petitions is joint and several and respondent nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent no.2/insurer has to deposit the compensation so awarded before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Resultantly, we pass the following: 3 (2014) 14 SCC 148 - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER ORDER (i) MFA.CROB No.100124/2019 is dismissed. MFA No.101076/2017 is allowed in-part. MFA No.103137/2016 is allowed in-part. MFA No.103178/2016 is allowed in-part. (ii) Claimants in MFA No.101076/2017 are entitled for compensation of Rs.26,65,000/- as against Rs.27,78,500/- thereby reduction in compensation at Rs.1,13,500/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization as against 7% awarded by the Tribunal, excluding the interest for the delayed period of 781 days. (iii) Claimant in MFA No.103137/2016 is held entitled for compensation of Rs.7,49,576/- as against Rs.2,85,000/- thereby, there is enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,64,576/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization as against 8% awarded by the Tribunal. - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1492-DB MFA.CROB No. 100124 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103137 of 2016 MFA No. 103178 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER (iv) Respondents- respective owner and insurer are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent no.3 to deposit the compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (v) Sofar as disbursement, apportionment and deposit of compensation, the orders of the Tribunals remain unaltered. (vi) There shall be modified awards in the above terms. (vii) Send back the Tribunals records along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK/CT-VG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13