- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101960 OF 2017 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104206 OF 2017 IN M.F.A. NO.101960 OF 2017 BETWEEN: M/S. BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS MANAGER, PLOT NO.3/9, GROUND FLOOR, NIRANJAN BUILDING, WARD NO.16, DR. RAJ KUMAR ROAD, BALLARI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. SMT. PUSHPADEVI W/O. LATE BABU LAL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 2. MINOR B. MUKESH S/O. LATE BABU LAL, AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. MINOR B. RAJESH S/O. LATE BABU LAL, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. MINOR B. RAVEENA D/O. LATE BABU LAL, AGE: 09 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 5. SMT. SHEELI DEVI W/O. BIYARAM, AGE: 62 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NEAR BSNL OFFICE, MADAKARI NAGAR, CHALLAKERE, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS, DEVI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101. 6. PRAKASH V. S/O. SUBBA RAO V., AGE: 48 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-34/N-3049, R/O. BATRI CANTONMENT POST, BALLARI-583104. 7. DR. M. MALATHI RAJASHEKHAR @ RAJASEKHAR M. MALATHI W/O. D. RAJASEKHAR REDDY, AGE: 40 YEARS, OWNER OF THE CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-34/N-3049, R/O. ABHI COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, S.P. CIRCLE, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH G.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2017 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI, IN M.V.C. NO.1125/2015, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 IN M.F.A. NO.104206 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PUSHPA DEVI W/O. LATE BABU LAL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 2. MINOR. B. MUKESH S/O. LATE BABU LAL, AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. MINOR. B. RAJESH S/O. LATE BABU LAL, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. MINOR. B. RAVEENA D/O. LATE BABU LAL, AGE: 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 5. SMT. SHEELI DEVI W/O. BIYARAM, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1. ALL ARE R/O: NEAR BSNL OFFICE, MADAKARI NAGAR, CHALLAKERE, PRESENTLY R/O: 2ND CROSS, DEVI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MANJUNATHA G.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRAKASH V. S/O. SUBBA RAO V., AGE: 48 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE CAR BEARING REG.NO.KA-34/N-3049, R/O: BATRI, CANTONMENT-POST, BALLARI-583101. 2. DR. M. MALATHI RAJASEKHAR @ RAJASEKHAR M. MALATHI - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 W/O. D. RAJASEKHAR REDDY, AGE: 40 YEARS, OWNER OF THE CAR BEARING REG. NO.KA-34/N-3049, R/O: ABHI COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, S.P. CIRCLE, DR. RAJ KUMR ROAD, BALLARI-583101. 3. M/S. BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS MANAGER, PLOT NO.3/9, GROUND FLOOR, NIRANJAN BUILDING, WARD NO.16, DR. RAJ KUMAR ROAD, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2-SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.34,18,672/- TO RS.2,00,00,000/- IN MVC NO.1125/2015 DATED 21.01.2017 ON FILE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII AT BALLARI, INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) Both the appeals are filed calling in question the judgment and award dated 21.01.2017, passed in MVC No.1125/2015, by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Ballari1. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 3. The factual matrix in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that on 31.12.2014, one Babu Lal2 along with his children were travelling on motorcycle bearing No.KA-16/U-2333. When the deceased was riding the said motorcycle from Challakere side on Ballari road, a car bearing No.KA-34/N-3049 came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle causing the accident in question, wherein the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to the hospital. However he succumbed to his injuries on 01.01.2015. Claiming 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’. 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 compensation for the death of the deceased, his wife, children and mother instituted the claim proceedings arraying the driver, owner and insurer of the offending car as respondents No.1 to 3 before the Tribunal. The claim petition was decided along with other connected claim petitions. The claimant examined herself as PW.1. Ex.P.1 to P.30 were marked. The driver of the car was examined as RW.1 and the representative of the insurer was examined as RW.2. Ex.R.1 and R.2 were marked. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 21.01.2017, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.34,18,672/- together with interest @ 7% p.a. 4. Being aggrieved, the insurer has preferred MFA No.101960/2017 and the claimants have preferred MFA No.104206/2017. 5. The learned counsel Sri S.K.Kayakamath, appearing for the insurer submits that the insured vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle who was the deceased. It is further contended that only the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 deceased sustained grievous injuries, whereas the pillion riders of the motorcycle sustained only minor injuries. It is further contended that in the complaint the car number was mentioned as KA-34/N-304, whereas in the further statement the car number has been mentioned as KA-34/N-3049. Hence it is contended that the Tribunal ought not to have directed the insurer to pay the compensation awarded. Further, it is contended that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the higher side and the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Manjunath G. Patil, appearing for the claimants justifies the findings of the Tribunal on negligence and liability and contends that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side. It is contended that the income tax returns have been produced as Ex.P.19 and that the income ought to have been assessed as per the same. It is further contended that the compensation awarded on other heads is also on lower side. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 7. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. 8. The questions that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal directing the owner and insurer of the car to pay compensation is erroneous and liable to be interfered with? ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper? 9. Reg. question No.(i):- The insurer in the statement of objections filed to the claim petition has denied involvement of the insured car bearing No.KA-34/N-3049 in the accident. The claimants have produced FIR and complaint (Ex.P.1) as well as the charge sheet (Ex.P.8). The charge sheet discloses that the driver of the car bearing No.KA-34/N-3049 has been charge sheeted. The driver of the car has been examined as RW.1 and he has deposed that he had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 insured vehicle as on the date of accident. He further deposed that when he was coming back to Ballari from Bengaluru and he was driving the vehicle on NH.19, a motorcycle was going on the left side of the road, suddenly took turn to the right side without showing any indicator and the rider of the motorcycle contributed to causing the accident. 10. The representative of the insurer has been examined as RW.2. He has deposed that the deceased was riding the motorcycle along with three pillion riders and hence the deceased was solely negligent in causing the accident. 11. It is relevant to note that the driver of the car (RW.1) has not deposed that the insured car has been falsely implicated in the accident. The testimony of RW.1 clearly discloses that he admits the accident. However, his testimony is alleging that the rider of the motorcycle who was the deceased also contributed to causing the accident. The insurer has not appointed any investigator to demonstrate that the investigation done by the police - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 authorities is erroneous. The insurer has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal on the ground that the deceased also contributed to causing the accident since he was riding the motorcycle with three pillion riders. The ground on which the judgment of the Tribunal is challenged is alleging that the insured car has been implicated in the accident and that only deceased sustained grievous injuries and other pillion riders who were children of the deceased sustained minor injuries, apart from contending that the income was on the higher side. 12. Although it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that number of the insured car given in the complaint and in the charge sheet are different, it is relevant to note that the police authorities have recorded the further statement and upon investigation have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the insured car. The insurer has not adduced any independent evidence to demonstrate that the insured car has been falsely implicated in the accident. The driver of the car (RW.1) also - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 does not dispute involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident. 13. The Tribunal noticing the fact that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the car, has recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash ad negligent driving by the driver of the car. 14. The insurer has failed to demonstrate that the said finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. Hence the question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the negative. 15. Reg. question No.(ii):- In the claim petition it is averred that the deceased was running a TV showroom and also landlord and that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month from the TV showroom and Rs.3,50,000/- p.a. from the agriculture. PW.1 has deposed that her husband the deceased was running TV showroom in the name and style “Kaveri Electro Vision” at Challakere and earning Rs.50,000/- per month from the same. It is also deposed that the deceased was a landlord having more than 50 acres of land - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 and was getting Rs.15,00,000/- per annum. It is also deposed that the deceased as well as PW.1 were paying the income tax regularly. Ex.P.19 is the statement of income for the assessment year3 2014-15. However the ITR-V form with respect to the said AY has not been filed. The statement of income for the AY-2013-14 along with ITR-V form discloses that the deceased has a gross income of Rs.2,18,780/- and that a tax of Rs.790/- was paid. The shop tax registration certificate (Ex.P.21) and three bank statements (Ex.P.26) have been produced. Having regard to the said documents, and the income tax returns of various years have been produced, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.2,17,990/- rounded of to Rs.2,18,000/- p.a. (Rs.2,18,780/- less Rs.790/-). 16. The deceased was aged 32 years as on the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier applied by the Tribunal is 16 which is just and proper. The Tribunal has added 30% of the income towards loss of future prospects. However, having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others4, 40% of the income is to be added towards future prospects. Having regard to the number of dependants, 1/4th of the income has been deducted by the Tribunal towards personal expenses, which is just and proper. Hence the income for the purpose of assessment of loss of dependency is re-assessed as Rs.2,18,000/- + 40% = Rs.3,05,200/- less 1/4th = Rs.2,28,900/-. Hence loss of dependency is re-assessed as Rs.36,62,400/- (Rs.2,28,900/- x 16), as against Rs.33,48,672/- assessed by the Tribunal. 17. The claimants are five in number who are wife, three children and mother and they are required to be awarded compensation towards loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each together with increment of 10%, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram and others5, and accordingly loss of consortium is re-assessed as 4 (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. 5 (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 10% x 5), as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. Further, a sum of Rs.16,500/- each is required to be awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses as against Rs.10,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively, awarded by the Tribunal. 19. The compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection is hereby set aside. 20. In view of the same, the compensation is re-assessed as follows: Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (₹) Amount awarded by this Court (₹) 1. Loss of dependency. 33,48,672 36,62,400 2. Loss of consortium. 20,000 2,20,000 3. Loss of estate. 10,000 16,500 4. Funeral expenses. 30,000 16,500 5. Loss of love and affection. 10,000 - Total: 34,18,672 39,15,400 21. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.39,15,400/- as against Rs.34,18,672/- - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the question No.(ii) framed for consideration is answered in the negative. 22. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7% p.a. Taking judicial notice of the rate of interest payable for fixed deposits, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 23. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i) MFA No.101960/2017 filed by the insurer is dismissed. ii) MFA No.104206/2017 filed by the claimants is partly allowed. iii) The judgment and award dated 21.01.2017, passed in MVC No.1125/2015, by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Ballari, is modified to the extent of holding that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.39,15,400/- together with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5483-DB MFA No. 101960 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 104206 of 2017 iv) The judgment and award of the Tribunal in all other respects is remain unlatered. v) The amount deposited in MFA No.101960/2017 together with the records shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. vi) The insurer of the car, the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal shall pay the balance compensation together with interest within four weeks from today. vii) Modified award to be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE MRK CT: UMD. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15