- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7425 OF 2014 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 226 OF 2016 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 7425/2014 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD HARSHA MAHAL ROAD, HASSAN NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE 2-B, UNITY BUILDING, ANNEXE, P. KALINGA RAO ROAD BANGALORE-560 027 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.PREMA W/O NAGESHA NOW AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 2. NAGESHA S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 BOTH R/O AMMANAGUDI KOPPALU VILLAGE SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK-573 201. 3. SHIVASHANKARA S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGE: MAJOR R/O # 10, DYAVALAPURA DUDDA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK-573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETHAN .B, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, R3-SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.377/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-I, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,93,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 226/2016 BETWEEN: 1. SMT PREMA W/O NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2. SRI NAGESHA S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT AMMANAGUDI KOPPALU VILLAGE SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 HASSAN TALUK - 573 201 HASSAN DISTRICT ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHETHAN .B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHIVASHANKARA S/O PUTTEGOWDA R/O HOUSE NO 10 DYAVALAPURA, DUDDA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK - 573 201 HASSAN DISTRICT 2. THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD HARSHA MAHAL ROAD HASSAN - 573 201 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20/08/2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.377/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-I, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are filed by the insurer as well as claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 20.08.2014, passed by the Principal District Judge and MACT, Hasan, (for short 'Tribunal'), in MVC No.377/2013. MFA No.7425/2014 is filed by the insurer and MFA No.226/2016 is filed by the claimants for seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that, on 28.09.2012 at around 08.30 a.m., the deceased Ms. Shruti met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-X-8681 by its rider. As a result, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. She was immediately shifted to Government Hospital and, from there, to Mangala Hospital for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 treatment, where she succumbed to her injuries on 29.09.2012 at about 09:40 a.m. 4. It is further the case of the claimants that the deceased, Shruthi, was aged about 18 years at the time of the accident and she was working as Teacher. She was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and contributing her income to the benefit of the family. Claimants are parents of the deceased. With these reasons, claimants have prayed to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and he remained exparte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2-Insurer filed its written statement denying the contentions of the claim petitioners. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 7. The claimants to prove their case examined 2 witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. 8. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and appreciating the materials on record, held that the deceased met with an accident involving the offending vehicle and died due to the injuries she sustained. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and her age as 21 years, applied the multiplier of 18, deducted 50% of her earnings towards personal expenses and awarded the compensation of Rs.6,93,000/-. 9. The appellant/insurer has challenged the said judgment on the ground of false implication of the vehicle, just to claim compensation. The claimants have filed the appeal contending that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 10. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for both the parties. 11. Learned counsel for the insurer vehemently contended that Ex.R-2 reveals that the deceased sustained injuries due to "self-fall from the motor cycle". The said document was not considered by the Tribunal. Investigation officer also not noted the said fact while investigating the case. Just to claim the compensation, the claimants have changed the scenario of the accident and contended that the deceased sustained injury due to rash and negligent riding of the offending motor cycle. The said contention is incorrect and false. The claimants have not approached the Court with clean hands. Therefore, prayed to set aside the said judgment. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal in the impugned judgment discussed the evidence in detail. PW1 is claimant No.1. She has stated about the death of her daughter, her age and occupation - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 etc. In her cross-examination, nothing was brought out to disbelieve her evidence. The claimants have examined PW- 2 who has stated the manner in which accident occured. 13. Respondent No.2 has not even confronted Ex.R2 to the said witnesses and the said respondent has not examined the Investigating Officer or the doctor who had recorded the history of injuries sustained by the deceased. Therefore, mere production of the documents is not sufficient to discard the evidence of the claimants. Therefore, prayed to confirm the judgment in respect of involvement of the vehicle. 14. Learned counsel for the claimants further contended that the accident occurred in the year 2012, the income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the deceased was well qualified. She got a distinction in B.Ed Course and she was serving as a teacher in the Sri Shambhavi Higher Primary School, Channapattana, Hassan, for which, certificate was produced at Ex.P-9. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 According to the claimants, she was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. which is reasonable and same may be accepted. He further contended that future prospects was not considered by the Tribunal and amount of consortium is not awarded as per the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others2. With these reasons, the claimants prayed to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. PW-1 is not a eye witness to the incident and PW-2 is said to be an eye witness to the incident. Ex.P4 i.e., charge sheet shows that he was an eye witness to the incident and in his evidence, he has stated that when the deceased was going towards the left side of the road, at that time, rider of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-13-X-8681 rode his vehicle in a rash and negligent 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 manner and hit the deceased. As a result, she fell down and became unconscious. He took her to the Government Hospital, Hassan for treatment and as per the medical advise, she was then shifted to Mangala Hospital by her parents. In his cross-examination, he denied that the rider of the motorcycle had fallen from the vehicle, and also stated that he had not accompanied the deceased while she was being taken to the hospital. His evidence was challenged, and he denied the suggestions that the deceased herself fell from vehicle and sustained the injuries. However, nothing was brought out in his evidence to discard it. He was not even asked whether he had provided any information about the history of the injury to the doctor. 16. Insurer mainly relied on Ex.R2. According to contents of Ex.R2, one Dharma @ Dharmapala gave information to the doctor regarding injuries sustained by the deceased. He appears to be a villager. Nothing was - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 asked in the cross-examination of the PW1 or PW2 regarding said Dharma and whether Dharma was present at the spot of the accident or whether he accompanied PW2 when he was shifting the injured to the hospital. Except the markings in the documents in the evidence of RW1, no such facts were elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 based on Ex.R2, and they were not even confronted with the same. 17. Under these circumstances, on the basis of the Ex.R2, the contentions of the claim petitioners cannot be disbelieved. The insurer had not taken any effort in proving the said documents. The Tribunal on the basis of available materials on record and the charge sheet, rightly held that accident occurred due to involvement of the offending vehicle. I do not find any reasons to interfere in the said findings. 18. Looking at the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as materials placed on - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 record, the compensation awarded is inadequate. The accident occured in the year 2012. The claimants have not examined any of the officers of the School to prove her income as Rs.10,000/- per month. It is true that she was well qualified, having good academic qualification, but when she was working as a teacher, at least, the claimants should have tried to place material on record to prove her income. Therefore, notional income of the deceased has to be assessed. Following the chart of notional income prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. As per the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% of her income has to added towards future prospects. Undisputedly, the multiplier applicable is "18" and she was unmarried. Therefore, 50% of her income needs to be deducted towards personal expenses. On that basis, compensation under the head loss of dependency is assessed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 19. Following the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), as well as judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd (supra), compensation under the conventional head is awarded. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for following amount of compensation: SL. NO. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency (7000+40%X12X18/2) 10,58,400/- 2. Loss of consortium 80,000/- 3. Loss of estate 15,000/- 4. Funeral and obsequies 15,000/- Total 11,68,400/- Less Amount awarded by the tribunal 6,93,000/- Enhanced compensation Rounded off 4,75,400/- 4,76,000/- - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 20. The claimants are entitled to interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its realization. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer submitted that, insurer has deposited 50% of the compensation amount before this Court and if the said amount is invested in the fixed deposit, then the claimants will get the said interest. The claimants are not entitled for the interest, if the amount deposited by the insurer has been invested in the interest bearing fixed deposit from the date of the said amount deposited. 22. MFA No.226/2016 is filed by the claimants after the delay of 397 days and while allowing the application, it was ordered that the claimants are not entitled for interest on the enhanced amount, If any for the delayed period. Accordingly, they are not entitled for interest for the delay. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 23. Undisputedly, the respondent-insurer is liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order, OR/DER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 20.08.2014 passed in MVC No.377/2013 by the Principal District Judge and MACT, Hassan, is modified. iii) Claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,76,000/- with the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realization, excluding and the period of delay of 397 days, in filing appeal. iv) The claimants are not entitled for the interest on the amount kept in the fixed deposit, from the date of the said deposit. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26121 MFA No. 7425 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 226 of 2016 v) Respondent No.2 shall deposit balance amount within a period of six weeks from the date award. vi) Whatever amount deposited, if any, kept in fixed deposit along with accrued interest be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. vii) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE CR /List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12