- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8778 OF 2015 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5382 OF 2015 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 8778/2015 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O LATE PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD R/O YELEBETHUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577002. 2. SRI PRASHANTH B. G. S/O LATE PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O YELEBETHUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577002. 3. SRI. SANTHOSH S/O LATE PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O YELEBETHUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GIRIDHAR H., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 AND: 1. SRI. SIDDAVEERAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.435, BASAVESHWARA NILAYA R/O YELEBETHUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE-577002. 2. SRI G. S. SHANTHAVEERAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O YELEBETHUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE - 577002. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S-5, 3RD FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBER, INFANTRY ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADV. FOR R3., V/O/D 01.02.2017 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W, R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 08.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.765/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER MACT-IV, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 IN MFA NO. 5382/2015 BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S-5, 3RD FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBER, INFANTRY ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-01 BY SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5/4, 3RD CROSS, S.V. ARCADE, BELAKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OPP. BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, II M.B. POST, BANGALORE-560076 BY ITS MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LALITHAMMA AGED 54 YEARS W/O LATE PRAKASH 2. PRASHANTH B.G. AGED 31 YEARS LATE PRAKASH 3. SANTHOSH AGED 28 YEARS S/O LATE PRAKASH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 ALL ARE R/AT YELEBETHUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK-577001. 4. SIDDAVEERAPPA AGED 67 YEARS S/O MALLAPPA, DOOR NO.435, BASAVESHWARA NILAYA, R/O YELEBETHUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK-577001. 5. G.S. SHANTHAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SIDDAPPA R/O YELEBETHUR VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK-577001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRIDHAR H., ADV. FOR R1 & R3, SRI. T. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADV. FOR R4 & R5.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 08.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.765/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-IV, DAVANAGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,03,000/- WITH SIMPLE INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) These two appeals arise out of the Judgment and award dated 08th April, 2015 in MC No.765 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Davanagere (for short, hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). 2. In the claim petition filed by the claimants seeking compensation for the death of B.G. Prakash in the road traffic accident that took place on 6th March 2011, by impugned Judgment and Award, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred Miscellaneous First Appeal No.8778 of 2015 seeking enhancement of compensation. Insurance Company has preferred Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5382 of 2015, challenging the quantum and also on the ground of liability. 3. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that the claimants are legal representative of deceased B.G. Prakash who died in an accident that took place on 06th March 2011. It - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 is stated in the Claim petition that on the fateful day, B.G. Prakash and respondent No.1 were proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-17/A-9208, from Yelebethur towards Nagarkatte village to go to the land of said Prakash and respondent No.1 was riding the motorcycle. When they reached near Vinayaka Convent at Yelebethur, the respondent No.1 rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control, resultantly the motorcycle toppled. Due to the impact, both rider and pillion rider fell and were grievously injured. Immediately, B.G. Prakash was first taken to Bapuji Hospital at Davangere in an ambulance. On the same day, while taking treatment, he succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. It is stated that petitioners incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for performing last rites. It is further stated that deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident. Petitioners, who are wife and children of the deceased, filed claim petition seeking compensation. 4. After issuance of summons, Respondents 1 to 3 appeared and filed their objections. Respondents 1 and 2 have denied the petition averments and further they have submitted that respondent No.1 was having valid driving license as on the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 date of accident and the motorcycle was also insured and the respondents No.1 and 2 have not violated any of the policy conditions and sought for dismissal of the claim petition with costs. 5. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed its objection contending that it issued Policy No. 418005-31-11-01- -1526 covering the motorcycle. It further denies the very occurrence of the accident as alleged in the petition that, at the time of the accident, respondent No.1 was riding the motorcycle and accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the rider, as the same was not within the knowledge of the respondent No.3. It is further contented that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is abnormal, excessive and without any legal basis and is against law. Hence, it sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Based on pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues. To prove the case of the petitioners, one Santosh, who is son of the deceased, was examined as PW1 and marked seven documents as per Exhibits P1 to P7. On closure of prosecution side evidence, respondent No.3-Insurance Company examined - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 eight witnesses as RWs1 to 8 and marked sixteen documents as per Exhibits R1 to R16. 7. Having heard on both sides, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- with interest at 6% from the rate of petition till realisation. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and award, claimants have preferred appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation and Insurance Company has preferred appeal questioning the liability and quantum. 8. It is brought to our notice that MFA No.8778 of 2015 preferred by the claimants was allowed by this Court vide Judgment dated 24th July, 2018. Thereafter, this Court, while disposing of IAs.I and II of 2018, recalled the Judgment dated 24th July 2018 and directed MFA No.8778 of 2015 to be heard along with MFA No.5382 of 2015. Accordingly, both cases are listed today for admission. 9. We have heard the arguments on both sides. Sri O Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of on part of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 the rider of the motorcycle, in spite of the fact that the claimants failed to prove the same by cogent and corroborative evidence. PW1 was not an eye- witness to the incident. The Tribunal ought to have seen that complaint was lodged with police by one G.S. Basavaraj on 6th March 2011 at 10:00 pm. The said Basavaraj was not examined before the Tribunal but was examined as PW1 in CC No.875 of 2011 on the file of JMFC Davanagere, who turned hostile only to save the accused Siddaveerappa, rider of the motorcycle who was falsely framed as rider of motorcycle only to make false claim. The Tribunal noted that an attempt was made to dilute the fact that one Mr Bakkappa who took the injured to hospital with alleged history of “Hit and run” which was recorded in MLC register which is marked as Exhibit R2. The Tribunal held that history of 'hit and run' given by B.G. Bakkappa was correct and stood proved in the light of Exhibits R2 and 4 coupled with evidence of Doctor RW1 and 2, which relied on the evidence of RW4. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, Sri Giridhar H., learned Counsel appearing for appellants in MFA No.8778 of 2015 would submit that the Tribunal has properly appreciated evidence on record in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 accordance with law and facts and held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on part of the rider of motorcycle. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation in accordance with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and accordingly sought for enhancement in the compensation and to dismiss the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. In support of his submissions, he relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEETA AND OTHERS v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLHAPUR reported in (2015)3 SCC 590. 11. We have given our consideration to the submission advanced by the learned counsels for the parties. Having heard on both sides and perusal of records placed before us, the following points arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the Insurance Company has made out ground to challenge the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal as to the liability of the Insurance company? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 2. Whether the claimants-appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? 12. We have examined the materials placed before us. The appellants have filed claim petition against the respondent seeking compensation for the death of Prakash in the road traffic accident. To substantiate the claim of the petitioners, one Santosh, Petitioner No.3, son of the deceased was examined as PW1. He has deposed in his evidence as to the averments made in the petition. He has also produced the complaint, FIR, spot mahazar, inquest panchanama and the charge sheet. A perusal of these materials makes it clear that on the basis of complaint filed by one G.S. Basavaraju, the Sub- Inspector of Davanagere Rural Police has registered a case in Crime No.50 of 2011 against Siddaveerappa, the rider of motorcycle for commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and submitted FIR to the court. On the same day, he visited the spot and conducted spot panchanama as per Exhibit P3. Police have also conducted inquest Panchanama of the deceased, recorded statement of witnesses and submitted charge-sheet against the rider of motorcycle for the aforesaid offences. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 13. The defence of the Insurance Company, as stated in the written statement, is one of total denial except admitting the issuance of policy to motorcycle at the material point of time. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has stated as to the fact that the alleged accident is one of 'hit and run'. However, the Insurance company has adduced the evidence of RWs1-8 and produced documents Exhibits R1 to R16. 14. RW1-D.J. Sharanappa has deposed in his evidence that he was working as a Regional Medical Officer in CG Hospital, Davanagere for the past three years. He has deposed that he has produced MLC Register extract upon the request made by the police to conduct postmortem and intimated the police about the incident, which are produced as Exhibits R2 to R4. Further, he has deposed that in Exhibit R2, the history of accident as given by one Bakkappa is one of 'hit and run', and the same was entered by Dr.SBC Sogi. 15. RW2-Dr. N Jayaprakash, Senior Specialist in CG Hospital, Davangere has deposed in his evidence as to issuance of Exhibits P4 and R4. He as further deposed that he has written in Exhibit P4 that the accident occurred due to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 involvement of motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-17/Q- 9208. 16. RW3 Dr. S.B.C. Sogi, has deposed that on 6th March 2011, he was working in Casualty Section, one Bakkappa brought the injured Prakash to the hospital stating that some vehicle hit the injured and fled the scene. He has written MLC register as per Exhibit R2. 17. RW4-G.A. Jagadish, Deputy Superintendent of Police, has deposed as to filing of charge-sheet against the accused in crime No.50 of 2011 in Davanagere Rural Police Station. 18. RW5-Sri Rajashekharappa Sangappa Mudasad, Legal Officer and authorised Signatory of Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, has deposed that the petitioners were in collusion with respondents 1 and 2. Furthermore, the said respondents and witnesses have falsely implicated the motorcycle No.KA-17/Q-9208 and created fabricated documents to defraud the respondent-Insurance Company taking the benefit of injury caused to the deceased from unknown vehicle/'hit and run' case. Hence, their Company is not liable - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 to pay any compensation to the petitioner. He has also produced documents in support of his claim. 19. RW7-Siddaveerappa, has deposed in his evidence that on 6th March 2011 at 7:00 pm, he was proceeding on Hero Honda Splendor motorbike along with pillion rider B.G. Prakash. While proceeding near petrol bunk of Yelebethur, Jagalur Road, he lost control over the motorcycle and as a result, he and pillion rider fell from the motorcycle and B.G.Prakash sustained severe head injury. The bike belongs to respondent No.2, and he had the driving license as on the date of accident. 20. RW8-Bakkappa, has deposed in his evidence that he is an agriculturist. On 6th March 2011, he shifted the injured B.G. Prakash in an ambulance. He has not given any statement before the medical officer. 21. A perusal of Exhibit R2, makes it clear that B.G. Prakash, aged about 55 years, was taken to the hospital with the history of hit and run case near Yelebethur, by one Bakkappa on 6th March 2011 at 7:00 pm. The said B. G Prakash was brought dead. In the same document it is stated as "IP166600 dated 6th March 2011 at 10:00 pm." - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 22. Exhibit R4 is the copy of the letter of Casualty Medical Officer at CG Hospital, Davanagere, addressed to Sub- Inspector, in which it is stated the patient name is shown as Prakash S/o Siddappa Gowda, Yelebethur, Davanagere aged 55 years, was brought to the hospital with the history of hit and run case. The patient was declared dead and was shifted to mortuary at 10:00 pm. This intimation was received by the police on 6th March 2011 at 10:15 pm. 23. Exhibit P1-complaint reveals that G.S. Basavaraju lodged a complaint with police on 6th March 2011 at 10:00 pm on the basis of which a case was registered in Crime No.50 of 2011 for offence commission punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and FIR submitted to the Court as per Exhibit P2. Exhibit P3-spot mahazar reveals that on 7th March 2011, Police have conducted mahazar in the presence of Panchas and complainant, in which it is clearly stated as to the place of accident and also as to the presence of bloodstains on the road and the headlight and indicators of motorcycle were damaged. Whereas, in Exhibit P21 reveals that Bakkappa brought the body of Prakash to the hospital on - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 6th March 2011 at 10:00 pm, and the same is also mentioned in Exhibit R4. 24. Prior to registration of medico legal case, the case was already registered by the concerned police officer on the basis of complaint filed by one G.S Basavaraj. There are some corrections in Exhibit R4. Respondent No.3 has not taken contention in its written statement regarding the hit and run case and stated that the statement made in the complaint is false. Without obtaining necessary documents, the Insurance Company has filed its written statement denying the accident. Even after the production of these documents, Insurance has not taken any steps to amend the written statement. Accordingly, the Tribunal has not framed any issue as to the defence, which is not pleaded in the return statement. Without any pleading, the evidence adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, we have meticulously examined the oral and documentary evidence, as well as the material witness. Bakkappa has not supported the defence set up by the Insurance company. On the contrary, the Investigating Officer, who has been examined by the Insurance company has supported the case of the appellant- - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 claimants and the charge-sheet submitted by the investigating officer has been substantiated by the evidence of the investigating officer-RW4. 25. As regards judgment passed in CC No.875 of 2011 dated 26th May 2012 on the file of JMFC Court at Davanagere is concerned, in the said case, the accused has been acquitted on the ground that PW1-complainant, PW4-Sivakumar and PW5- Doddabasappa have not supported the case of prosecution. This acquittal does not bind the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the history of hit and run. The Tribunal has to independently assess the evidence placed by both the parties on preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts, and has come to the conclusion that the petitioners have proved that the accident occurred due to the negligent act on the part of the Rider of the motorcycle. On re-evaluation, re- examination and reconsideration of the entire material placed before us, we do not find any error or illegality or infirmity in the finding given by the Tribunal. Hence, we answer the point formulated in the negative. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 26. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the accident took place on 6th March, 2011. The petitioners have not produced any proof to show the exact income of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month i.e. taking the wage of the deceased at Rs.150/- per day. The same is not in consonance with the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. For the accidents of the year 2011, the notional income is to be taken at Rs.6,500/- per month. Accordingly the same is taken. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 10% is to be added towards future prospects. Then the Income would be Rs.7,150/-. Taking into account the number of dependents, one-third is to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased. If that is deducted, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.4,767/-. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 58 years based on the postmortem report. As per the decision of Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 8. Then the loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,57,632/- (Rs.4,767/- x 12 x 8). As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the appellants are entitled for compensation under conventional heads. Accordingly, Rs.40,000/- each is awarded under the head loss of consortium, which comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. The appellants are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and towards funeral expenses. 27. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R 1. MFA No.5382 of 2015 preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed; 2. MFA No.8778 of 2015 preferred by the appellant/claimants is partly allowed; 3. Judgment and award dated 08th April, 2015 passed in MVC No.765 of 2011 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-IV, Davanagere is modified holding that the appellants are entitled for compensation of - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23383-DB MFA No. 8778 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5382 of 2015 Rs.6,07,632/- as against Rs.3,03,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till its realisation; 4. Respondent-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment; 5. Amount if any in deposit, be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith; 6. Apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be as per the order of the Tribunal; 7. Registry to draw award accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1