- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7238 OF 2014 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1199 OF 2015 (MV-D) IN MFA No.7238/2014 BETWEEN: 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGD., OFFICE, #3 , MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA-700071 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144 M G ROAD BENGALURU-560001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHUSHEELA W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. SUBHALAXMI D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA NAYAK NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 BOTH ARE R/AT H.NO.4-164, KUDDUPADAVU HOUSE, KEPU VILLAGE, ADYANADKA POST BANTWAL TALUK-574218. 3. BIJU MATHEW S/O MATHEW NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT CHEERAMATTATTIL KANJIRAKOLLY POST PAYYAVOOR, TALIPARAMBU KANNUR DISTRICT KERALA STATE-670 141. 4. SHANKARAYANA NAYAK S/O KITTANNA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS KUDDUPADAVU HOUSE, KEPU VILLAGE, ADYANADKA POST BANTWAL TALUK-574 218. 5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. PRABHU BUILDING, MAIN ROAD PUTTUR-574 201. 6. SANJEEVA AGED:MAJOR R/A ROAD VILLA HOUSE OUTTU MALA, KATTADI POST POOYAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. SURESH KUMAR S/O CHANDRAN PILLAI MAJOR R/AT CHANDRAKANTHAM PALAKKADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 ADIHANALLOR-691573 KERALA STATE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R.1-R.2; SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R.5; R.3, R.4, R.6, R.7 ARE SERVED.) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.07.2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT-III, D.K. MANGALORE, IN MVC NO.1188/2008, ETC. IN MFA NO.1199/2015 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHUSHEELA W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 2. SUBHALAXMI D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT H.NO.4-164, KUDDUPADAVU HOUSE, KEPU VILLAGE, ADYANADKA POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 218. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 AND: 1. MR. BIJU MATHEW S/O MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT CHEERAMATTATTIL, KANJIRAKOLLY POST, PAYYAVOOR, TALIPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-676 005. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICER 3, MIDDLETON STREET, POST BOX NO.9229, KOLKATTA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER-700071. 3. MR. SHANKARANARAYANA NAYAK S/O KITTANNA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, KUDDUPADAVU HOUSE, KEPU VILLAGE, ADYANADKA POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.-574 218. 4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PRABHU BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR, D.K. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER-574 201. 5. MR. SANJEEVA MAJOR, R/AT ROAD VILLA HOUSE, OUTTU MALA, KATTADI POST, POOYAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-676 015. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 6. MR. SURESH KUMAR S/O CHANDRAN PILLAI, MAJOR, R/AT CHANDRAKANTHAM, PALAKKADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, ADICHANALLOR, KERALA STATE-691 573. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R.2; SRI JOE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR R.6; R.4 AND R.5 SERVED; NOTICE TO R.1 & R.3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 31.10.2017.) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.07.2014, IN MVC NO.1188/2008, PASSED BY THE MEMBER MACT-III & II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALORE AND CLAIM PETITION BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT Both these appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 26.07.2014 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge & MACT-III, D.K., Mangalore in MVC No.1188/2008 (for short 'the Tribunal'). MFA No.7238/2014 is filed by the insurer challenging the quantum of negligence as well as compensation awarded by the Tribunal. MFA No.1199/2015 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.01.2008, at around 7.40 p.m., the deceased - Ramachandra Nayak was driving the motor cycle bearing registration No.MEX-930 from Kaladka side towards Vittal. Near the spot of the incident, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-02-B-6923 was going in front of the said motor cycle. The driver of the said lorry was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and at the spot of the incident, he abruptly applied the brake and stopped his vehicle without any signal. Due to this, the rider of the motor cycle - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 could not stop his vehicle and hit backside of the lorry, as a result, he sustained fatal injuries. Rider of the motorcycle was shifted to hospital and admitted as an inpatient till 25.04.2008. For higher treatment, he was shifted to KMC Hospital, Manipal. While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 10.06.2008, at around 4.00 p.m. The deceased was treated as inpatient for nearly six months. The claimants have spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical expenses. 4. The claimants contended that, at the time of the accident the deceased was 57 years old and was serving as a Deputy Tahsildar in Bantwal Taluk. He was earning monthly salary of Rs.18,932/-. The claimants were dependent on his income. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending lorry for the accident in question. For these reasons, claimants being the wife and daughter of the deceased have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owners and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending lorry. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the purchasers of the policy of insurance on the offending lorry from respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 is the owner of motor - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 cycle wherein the deceased was travelling and respondent No.4 was the insurer of the motor cycle. 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained absent before the Tribunal. Although, respondent Nos.5 and 6 appeared before the tribunal, they did not file their written statements. Respondent No.2, in its written statement denied the contentions of the claimants and it also denied its liability to pay the compensation, due to breach of conditions of policy of insurance. It is also contended that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident and the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased - Ramachandra Nayak. On these grounds, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. Respondent No.4 denied the contentions of the claimants. It also contended that amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive and disproportionate. Respondent No.4 is not a necessary party and claim petition is not maintainable against respondent Nos.3 and 4. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. The Tribunal framed necessary issues in this regard. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 9. The claimants to prove their contention examined two witnesses as PWs-1 and 2 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P22. Respondent No.2 got marked one document as Ex.R1 and in the cross examination of PW-2 marked two documents as Exs.R2 and R3. 10. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and after appreciating the materials on record held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver. The Tribunal assessing the materials available on record, awarded following amount of compensation. 1. Loss of dependency: Rs.6,84,000-00 2. Medical expenses: Rs.4,77,000-00 3. Mental agony, suffering, love and affection etc: Rs.50,000-00 4. Loss of consortium: Rs.50,000-00 5. Funeral, transport and obsequies ceremony: Rs.25,000-00 5. Attendant charges, conveyance etc.: Rs.60,000-00 Total: Rs.13,46,000-00 11. In all the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,46,000/- and directed respondent No.2 to pay the said amount of compensation. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 12. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for insurer i.e., respondent No.2 and claimants as well as learned counsel for respondent No.5. 13. The following questions arises for my determination: i. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the entire negligence was of the driver of the lorry in causing the accident in question? ii. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? iii. What Order? 14. Point No.1: Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - insurer contended that on perusal of the papers, it clearly reveals that rider of the motor cycle did not leave proper distance between both the vehicles, as provided under Regulation No.23 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Had the rider of the motor cycle maintained proper distance between both the vehicles, then he could have avoided the accident. Hence, he was rashly and negligently, riding his vehicle. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nishan - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 Singh And Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Regional Manager And Ors.1 15. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that rider of the motor cycle had taken all care and caution. At the spot of accident, there was a check post and police officials had given a signal to the driver of the lorry, to stop the vehicle. The driver abruptly stopped the vehicle and tried to take the vehicle to the right side of the road. In that process, the rider of the motor cycle could not control his vehicle and hit the back side of the lorry, which resulted in fatal injuries to him. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the motor cycle rider. 16. The manner in which the accident occurred is not in dispute. The spot of accident and the vehicles involved are also not in dispute. PW-1 is admittedly not an eye witness to the incident. PW-2 was examined by the claimants who is said to be an eye witness to the incident. During the cross- examination, he admitted that he had given evidence before the Tribunal in respect of the very same accident, wherein he stated before the Court that he had not seen the incident. His deposition recorded before the Criminal Court in 1 LAWS(SC)-2018-4-155 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 C.C.No.771/2008 on the file of the JMFC, Bantwal marked as Ex.R1. Therefore, the evidence of PW-2 recorded before the Tribunal, is contrary to Ex.R1 and hence, his evidence is not reliable and he is not a trustworthy witness. 17. Undisputedly, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending lorry. Copy of the FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, inquest mahazar and charge sheet are produced at Exs.P1 to P7. Looking at the sketch produced at Ex.P4, it is evident that the spot of accident is more or less towards the middle of the road and both the vehicles were going in the same direction. It is not the contention of the claimants that at the time of accident, there was heavy traffic at the spot of accident. Had the deceased controlled his vehicle, he could have avoided the accident either taking his vehicle to either side of the road or stopped his vehicle. It also appears that he did not leave proper distance between both the vehicle. He might be going in speed and hence could not stop his vehicle. Similarly, the lorry which was going in high speed suddenly and abruptly stops without indication, then the drivers of the vehicle coming behind the lorry would be helpless. Considering the contents of the charge sheet and its enclosures, it can be safely - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 concluded that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of both the driver of the lorry and the rider of the motor cycle in the ratio of 90:10. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative. 18. Point No.2: Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that as on the date of the accident, the deceased was still serving as a Deputy Tahsildar and he was drawing salary of Rs.17,087/- as per Ex.P13 whereas, the Tribunal has considered it as Rs.9,500/- for assessment of compensation under the head loss of dependency, which is incorrect. The cause of action for filing the claim petition arose on the date of accident. Therefore, it has been taken into consideration for the assessment of compensation. The said submission is not acceptable. The deceased died after his retirement, till then, he was drawing the salary. The compensation under the head loss of dependency can be awarded only after death of the breadwinner of the family, not during his life time. Therefore, the cause of action to the claimants to claim the compensation under the head loss of dependency arose only after the death of victim of the accident due to injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly considered the income - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 of the deceased based on the salary he was drawing prior to his death i.e., Rs.9,500/- per month. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at that point of time the retirement age was 58 years. The deceased was hale and healthy and was serving as Deputy Tahsildar. Had he continued in service, he would have earned more than other persons. Therefore, he is entitled for future prospects. The said submission cannot be ruled out. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others2, 15% of his income has to be added towards future prospects. The multiplier applicable is '9'. Since the claimants are widow and daughter, 2/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses. On the basis of the said material, the compensation under the head loss of dependency is to be calculated. 20. The learned counsel for insurer - appellant in MFA No.7238/2014 submitted that deceased was a government servant and he was entitled to claim reimbursement. Hence, claimants were not entitled to the compensation under medical 2 2017 ACJ 2700 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 expenses. On this point, he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Sri.Manish Gupta and Others decided on 11.10.2012 in MFA No.6950/2007 c/w. MFA Nos.6952/2007 & 15422/2007, 21. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants submitted that the claimants have submitted medical bills amounting to Rs.5,07,423/-. Out of that, medical bills worth Rs.3,15,606/- were returned unpaid and not reimbursed. He further contended that while the deceased was undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries and thereafter, the hospital issued some of the medical bills. Since he was dead, the department did not pay the remaining bills. They were awarded by the Tribunal and not entire amount of medical bills. The reimbursed amount comes to Rs.3,15,606/-. The Tribunal has added the medical expenses incurred by the claimants subsequent to his retirement as well as the amount not reimbursed by the Government and awarded compensation of Rs.4,77,000/- towards medial expenses and not entire medical expenses. The submission of the claimants is true. They have produced the certificate about total amount reimbursed by the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 department. Which were not paid by the Department, were awarded by the Tribunal. There is no error in the same. 22. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (referred supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others3, each of the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium'. The said submission is tenable. 23. Learned counsel for claimants also submits that the Tribunal has not awarded a just and reasonable amount of compensation towards attendant charges. The deceased was admitted in different hospitals nearly for a period of six months. He had to be attended by one of the family member or any other attendant. Since he was admitted in the hospital, the claimants had to visit the hospital and spend substantial amount towards conveyance charges. These aspects were not considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, prays to enhance compensation under the said heads. The said contention is tenable. It needs enhancement. Compensation under the 3 2018(18)SCC130 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 conventional heads are awarded as per the law laid in Pranay Sethis's as well as Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. 24. 10% is deducted, due to the negligence of rider of the motor cycle. 25. For above discussion, claimants are entitled to following compensation: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency (9500 *+ 15%x12x9x2/3) 7,86,600.00 2. Medical expenses 4,77,000.00 3. Loss of consortium(40,000x2) 80,000.00 5. Funeral expenses 15,000.00 6. Attendant and conveyance charges and mental agony of claimants 1,50,000.00 7. Loss of estate 15,000.00 Total *15,23,600.00 10% towards negligence (15,73,600X10%) * 1,52,360.00 *13,71,240.00 Less: compensation awarded by the Tribunal *13,46,000.00 Enhancement *25,240/- 26. Undisputedly, respondent No.1 is the owner. Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Both are jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced amount of *Rs.25,240/-. * Corrected vide court order dated 21/11/2025. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 27. The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of claim petition till its payment. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. 28. Point No.3: For the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA No.7238/2014 and MFA No.1199/2015 are partly allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge and MACT-III, D.K., Mangalore in MVC No.1188/2008 is modified; a) The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of *Rs.25,240/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Forty only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its payment. b) Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of the award. *Corrected vide court order dated 21/11/2025. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23964 MFA No. 7238 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1199 of 2015 c) The findings of the Tribunal regarding apportionment, deposit and release of the amount is not disturbed. d) Whatever amount deposited by the insurer in MFA No.7238/2014 shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. iii. The interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand disposed of, in view of the disposal of the appeal. iv. Send back the trial Court records along with copy of the judgment. v. Registry to draw up the decree accordingly. SD/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10