- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ® DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3791/2017(MV-DM) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3782/2017(MV-D), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3786/2017(MV-D), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3790/2017(MV-I), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3792/2017(MV-D), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4590/2017(MV-D), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4591/2017(MV-D), & MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4592/2017 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 3791/2017: BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 74/A, PARAMATHI ROAD NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE, THROUGH ITS BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560-001, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ISMAYIL SHAFI SHALIMAR, S/O LATE IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O PERNE HOUSE, PERNE VILLAGE AND POST, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 BANTWAL TALUK, D.K-575 018, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SOUZA COMPOUND, BEHIND CAPITANIO SCHOOL PUMPWELL MANGALURU TALUK. 2. N. LAXMI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O P. NALLUSWAMY, PROPRIETOR OF M/S PANDYAN ROADWAYS, NO.6/1168/A, PARMATHI ROAD, NAMAKAL TOWN, NAMAKAL TALUK AND DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-573 001. …RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1013/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MANGALURU, D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,58,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 3782/2017: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., FIRST FLOOR, BHARATH BUILDING, K.S. RAO ROAD, MANGALURU, THROUGH ITS BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 AND: 1. MUMTAZ P, D/O LATE MOHAMED P, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 2. ABDUL SALEEM, S/O LATE MOHAMED P, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, 3. MUFEEDA, D/O LATE MOHOAMED P, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MINOR 4. MUNEERA D/O LATE MOHAMED P, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, MINOR, 5. AYISHATHUL MUBEENA, D/O LATE MOHAMED P, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, MINOR, THE RESPONDENTS NO.3,4 AND 5 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR PATERNAL UNCLE MR.UMMER SHAFI, S/O LATE IBRAHIM SHALIMAR, R/O SHALIMAR HOUSE, PERNE VILLAGE & POST, BANTWAL TALUK D.K. PRESENTLY R/AT ZAMZAM MANZIL, JEPPU BAPPAL, JEPPU, MANGALURU TALUK. 6. N LAXMI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O P NALLUSWAMY, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. PANDYAN ROADWAYS, NO.6/1168/A - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 PARMATHI ROAD NAMAKAL TOWN, NAMAKAL TALUK AND DIST TAMILNADU. ...RESPONDENTS (R6 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1651/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MANGALURU, D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.10,86,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 3786/2017: BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 74/A,PARAMATHI ROAD NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE, THROUGH ITS BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144,SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD,BANGALORE-560 001, REPRSENTED BY ITS ASSITANT MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SUNDER RAI, S/O LATE P ARAI RAI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. SHASHIKALA, D/O MR SUNDER RAI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 3. DHANALAXMI, D/O MR SUNDER RAI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O PERNE HOUSE, PERNE VILLAGE & POST BANTWAL TALUK D.K -575 018, NOW R/AT GANAESH KRUPA, ADYAR MANGALORE TALUK 4. N LAXMI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O P NALLUSWAMY, PROPRIETOR OF M/S PANDYAN ROADWAYS, NO.6/1168/A, PARMATHI ROAD NAMAKAL TOWN, NAMAKAL TALUK AND DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-637 001 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, R4 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1367/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T AND I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU.D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,06,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 3790/2017: BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 74/A PARAMATHI ROAD NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE THROUGH ITS BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE, NO 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SAFIYA, W/O ABOOBAKKER, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO 1-20 PERNE POST & VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, PRESENTLY R/O M R BHAT LANE, 2ND BRIDGE JEPPU, MANGALURU TALUK. 2. N LAXMI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O P NALLUSWAMY, PROPRIETOR OF M/S PANDYAN NO 6/1168/A PARAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKAL TOWN, NAMAKAL TALUK, AND DISTRICT TAMILNADU – 637 001 ...RESPONDENTS THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1132/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND I ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.64,005/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 3792/2017 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., IST FLOOR, BHARATH BUILDING, K.S.RAO ROAD, MANGALURU, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 THROUGH ITS BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE, NO 144 SHUBARAM COMPLEX, M G ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS AISAMMA, D/O LATE IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O GUDDEMANE, PERNE POST AND VILALGE BANTWAL TALUK PRESENTLY R/O D’SOUZA COMPOUND, PADEEL, MANGALURU TALUK 2. MRS ZAINABI, D/O LATE IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O GUDDEMANE, PERNE POST AND VILALGE, BANTWAL TALUK, PRESENTLY R/O D’SOUZA COMPOUND, PADEEL, MANGALURU TALUK -575 001. 3. MRS THAJIBI, D/O LATE IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O GUDDEMANE, PERNE POST AND VILALGE, BANTWAL TALUK, PRESENTLY R/O D’SOUZA COMPOUND, PADEEL, MANGALURU TALUK -575 001. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 4. MR G ABBAS, S/O LATE IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O GUDDEMANE, PERNE POST AND VILALGE, BANTWAL TALUK, PRESENTLY R/O D’SOUZA COMPOUND, PADEEL, MANGALURU TALUK -575 001. 5. MRS SARAMMA, D/O LATE IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O GUDDEMANE, PERNE POST AND VILALGE, BANTWAL TALUK, PRESENTLY R/O D’SOUZA COMPOUND, PADEEL, MANGALURU TALUK -575 001. 6. MRS AVVAMMA, D/O LATE IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O GUDDEMANE, PERNE POST AND VILALGE, BANTWAL TALUK, PRESENTLY R/O D’SOUZA COMPOUND, PADEEL, MANGALURU TALUK -575 001. 7. MR ABOOBAKKER, S/O LATE IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O GUDDEMANE, PERNE POST AND VILALGE, BANTWAL TALUK, PRESENTLY R/O D’SOUZA COMPOUND, PADEEL, MANGALURU TALUK -575 001. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 8. N. LAXMI W/O P.NALLUSWAMY, MAJOR IN AGE, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. PANDYAN ROADWAYS, C/1168/A, PARAMATHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL TOWN, TALUK & DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE – 637 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD .B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.910/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 5,40,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 4590/2017: BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 74/A PARAMATHY ROAD NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-637 001, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, BHARATH BUILDING, P.M.ROAD, MANGALURU, THROUGH ITS BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 AND: 1. NARAYANA NAIK, S/O LATE B S GOVINDA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O PERNE HOUSE, PERNE VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. 2. BABY CHITRA @ CHITRAKSHI, D/ ONARAYAN NAIK, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, R/O PERNE HOUSE, PERNE VILLAGE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER THE RESPONDENT NO.1 3. BABY CHAITRA, D/O NARAYAN NAIK, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, R/O PERNE HOUSE, PERNE VILLAGE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER THE RESPONDENT NO.1. 4. N LAXMI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O P NALLUSWAMY, R/O RCC, M 206-261, S G MUTT ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY., ADVOCATE) - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1153/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T AND I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 8,50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 4591/2017: BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 74/A, PARAMATHI ROAD NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL DISTIRCT, TAMILNADU STATE, THROUGH ITS BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANKAR RAI S/O ARAI RAI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O NO.1-18. PERNE VILLAGE, VIA UPPINANGADY BANTWALA TALUK. 2. SHRAVYA RAI P, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/O NO.1-18. PERNE PERNE VILLAGE, VIA UPPINANGADY BANTWALA TALUK. 3. P SHAKSHA RAI, W/O SUNDARA MOOLYA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, R/O NO.1-18, PERNE PERNE VILLAGE, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 VIA UPPINANGADY BANTWALA TALUK MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE RESPONDENT NO.1. 4. N LAXMI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O P NALLUSWAMY, PROPRIETOR OF M/S PANDYAN ROAD LINES, NO.6/1168/A, PARMATHI ROAD NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL TALUK AND DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-637 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3, R2 AND R4 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1175/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MANGALURU, D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.8,14,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% PF.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 4592/2017: BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 74/A, PARAMATHI ROAD NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT TAMILNADU STATE THROUGH ITS BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER ...APPELLANT - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VIJAYA, W/O LATE VASANTHA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O NO.3-53, PALLATHIL HOUSE, SOORIKUMERU POST, MANI VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, NOW R/O HOSAMANE HOUSE, BONDANTHILA VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK-575 001. 2. SUNDARA MOOLYA, S/O BABU MOOLYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O NO.3-53, PALLATHIL HOUSE, SOORIKUMERU POST, MANI VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK NOW R/O HOSAMANE HOUSE, BONDANTHILA VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK-575,001. 3. SMT LALITHA, W/O SUNDARA MOOLYA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NO.3-53, PALLATHIL HOUSE, SOORIKUMERU POST, MANI VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, NOW R/O HOSAMANE HOUSE, BONDANTHILA VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK-575,001. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 4. N LAXMI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O P NALLUSWAMY, PROPRIETOR OF M/S PANDIAN ROAD LINES, NO.6/1168/A, PARMATHY ROAD, NAMAKAL TOWN, NAMAKKAL TALUK AND DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-637 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R4-N LAXMI-SD., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1420/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T AND I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU.D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 13,67,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 26.09.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT These appeals are filed by the insurance company against the common award dated 30.12.2016 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru, D.K., in MVC Nos.1013 of 2014, 1651 of 2013, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 1367 of 2013, 1132 of 2014, 910 of 2014, 1153 of 2013, 1175 of 2013 and 1420 of 2015 respectively. 2. The Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record and granted compensation, in all cases, and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. The Tribunal, in all cases, directed respondent No.2 therein, to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of the said award. 3. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance company has preferred these appeals. The learned counsel for appellant-insurance company contended that the petitioners received amount from the Government of Karnataka contributed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) and disbursed through Deputy Commissioner as ex-gratia compensation for the shop damage/accidents due to the fire accident arising out of the use of the LPG tankers bearing No.KA-01-AC-6600. It is contended that the Tribunal ought to have deducted the aforesaid ex gratia amount from the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal in view - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Helen C Rebello [Mrs] and Others Vs. MSRTC and Others reported in 1991[1] SCC 90 and Bhakhra Beas Management Board Vs. Kanta Aggarwal [Smt.] and Others reported in 2008[11] SCC 366. But the tribunal erred in not deducting the ex gratia paid by the HPCL disbursed through District Collector and erred in fastening the liability on the appellant-insurance company to pay the compensation. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner-claimant should not gain twice from two sources and the principles of loss and gain has to be on the same plane within the same sphere and whatever pecuniary advantage is received by the claimant from whatever source would only mean which comes to the claimant on account of accidental death and not from other forms of death. It is contended that the petitioners, as the case may be, already received for damages to the shop/accidents, but it was not deducted. Though the appellant-insurance company filed an application to summon the officials of HPCL, the said application - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 was dismissed. Thus, requested this Court to set aside the order. 5. M.F.A. No.3791 of 2017 is filed against the award passed in MVC No.1013 of 2014 mainly contending that the petitioners have not produced the khatha extracts, tax paid receipts from the competent authority, building sanction documents of title pertaining to the shop premises to show that it was damaged in the fire accident. Considering the case of the owner that his shop damaged in the fire accident, the Tribunal granted Rs.3,57,000/- towards damages and Rs.1,000/- for conveyance charges, totaling the compensation of Rs.3,58,000/- and it is illegal. 6. M.F.A. No.3782 of 2017 is filed against the award of the Tribunal in MVC No.1651 of 2013, in which it is contended that the petitioners received Rs.3,60,000/- from Government of Karnataka towards ex gratia. But, tribunal did not deduct this amount and also erroneously granted Rs.5,00,000/- under the head loss of love and affection and it is excessive and not - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 sustainable, and the total compensation of Rs.10,86,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary. 7. M.F.A. No.3786 of 2017 is filed against the award of the Tribunal in MVC No.1367 of 2013, in which it is contended that the petitioners received the compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- from the Government of Karnataka towards ex gratia and the said amount is not deducted by the Tribunal and thus, the compensation of Rs.6,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable. 8. M.F.A. No.3790 of 2017 is filed against the award of the Tribunal in MVC No.1132 of 2014, in which the appellant has contended that the petitioner received Rs.1,00,000/- from the Government of Karnataka towards ex gratia. This said amount is not deducted by the Tribunal from the compensation. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 9. M.F.A. No.3792 of 2017 is filed against the award of the Tribunal in MVC No.910 of 2014 in which it is contended that one Ajjima, aged 79 years, met with an accident and died. Her married daughter and a major son were not dependent on the income of the deceased. But, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,80,000/- under the head loss of dependency and it is excessive and not sustainable. The compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- awarded under the head loss of love and affection, is also illegal. It is contended by the appellant that the petitioners received Rs.88,000/- from the Government of Karnataka towards ex-gratia and it is not sustainable. 10. M.F.A. No.4590 of 2017 is filed against the award of the Tribunal in MVC No.1153 of 2013 in which it is contended that the petitioner received Rs.3,00,000/- from the Government of Karnataka towards ex gratia. The Tribunal erred in granting Rs.3,00,000/- under the head loss of love and affection. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary, and not sustainable. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 11. M.F.A. No.4591 of 2017 is filed against the award of the Tribunal in MVC No.1175 of 2013 in which it is contended that the petitioners received Rs.3,00,000/- towards ex gratia from the Government of Karnataka. They also received Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of one Shobha Rai. The said amount was awarded towards loss of love and affection, which is illegal and the total compensation of Rs.8,14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is arbitrary. 12. M.F.A. No.4592 of 2017 is filed against the award of the Tribunal in MVC No.1420 of 2015 mainly contending that the petitioners have received Rs.1,50,000/- towards ex gratia. The Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month and awarded Rs.11,52,000/- under the head loss of dependency and it is illegal. The total compensation of Rs.13,67,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is also arbitrary. 13. The Insurance company preferred all the appeals, mainly on the ground that already the Government of - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 Karnataka paid ex gratia amount, but it was not deducted by the Tribunal. Now, it is for the Court to say as to whether ex gratia amount granted by the Government of Karnataka is to be deducted from the compensation granted by the Tribunal or not. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Kanta Aggarwal (Smt) And Others reported in (2008)11 SCC 366, has held as follows: “34. This is based on the principle that the claimant for the happening of the same incidence may not gain twice from two sources. This, it is excluded thus, either through the wisdom of the legislature or through the principle of loss and gain through deduction not to give gain to the claimant twice arising from the same transaction viz, the same accident. It is significant to record here in both the sources viz, either under the Motor Vehicles Act or from the employer, the compensation receivable by the claimant is either statutory or through the security of the employer securing for his employee but in both cases he receives the amount without his contribution. How thus an amount earned out of one's labour or contribution towards - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 one's wealth, savings, etc. either for himself or for his family which such person knows under the law has to go to his beirs after his death either by succession or under a will could be said to be the 'pecuniary gain' only on account of one's accidental death. This, of course, is a pecuniary gain but how this is equitable or could be balanced out of the amount to be received as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no correlation between the two amounts. Not even remotely. How can an amount of loss and gain of one contract be made applicable to the loss and gain of another contract. Similarly. how an amount receivable under a statute has any correlation with an amount earned by an individual. Principle of loss and gain has to be on the same plane within the same sphere, of course, subject to the contract to the contrary or any provisions of law.” 15. In another case, in the case of Helen C Rebello [Mrs] and Others Vs. MSRTC and Others reported in 1991[1] SCC 90, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 “Common law principle of adjusting the pecuniary advantages coming from Whatever source by reason of death, held, has to be interpreted in such cases as referring to pecuniary advantages coming on account of accidental death and not other forms of death, provident fund, family pension, cash balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc., cannot be termed as "pecuniary advantages" for the purposes of Motor Vehicles Act - Legislative intent and beneficial character of the legislation taken into account for interpreting the provision” “All these and such other provisions are clearly beneficial legislation, hence should be interpreted in a manner which confers benefit and not which usurp its benefit.” “amount received by the claimant on the life insurance of the deceased is not deductible from the compensation computed under the Motor Vehicles Act.” 16. Further, in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Others Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 Others reported in 2002(6) SCC 281, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “Only the receipts having some correlation with the accidental death, held, deductible – Amounts received by the dependants on account of insurance policy of the deceased and amount received by them under social security system, held, have no such correlation with the accidental death, not deductible.” 17. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment in case of Union of India Vs. Anil Kumar Gupta reported in 2004 ACJ 1207, wherein it was held that ex gratia cannot be deductible. 18. In the case of Gayathri Devi and others Vs. Election Commission of India reported in 2024 SCC Online Jhar 3515, the point was raised as to whether ex gratia amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is to be adjusted against the awarded amount of compensation and it was held as follows: Point no. (b) Whether the ex-gratia amount of Rs.10 lacs ought to have been adjusted against the awarded amount of compensation? - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 XXXXXX Point no. (b) XXXXXXX 3. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90 (Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has analyzed the legal position XXXXXXX The State or the Election Commission of India neither filed any written statement before the Tribunal nor there was no material on record to relate payment of ex-gratia amount to one or the other head/subhead under which compensation is payable in terms of Motor Vehicle Act so as to demonstrate that payment of ex-gratia amount could be double benefit. It was also not clear as to whether the payment of ex-gratia was part of ‘social security’ or it was a compensation for ‘loss of income’. It is also not clear as to how the ex- gratia amount of Rs.10 lacs has been calculated and what is the basis of such calculation and whether the amount was relatable to the loss of ‘pay and wages’ or any other head/subhead under which compensation is payable in terms of Motor Vehicles Act. It is further not in dispute that Rs.10 lakhs is payable to the legal heirs and successors of deceased employee merely on account of death of employee while an election duty irrespective of the fact as to whether the death occurs on account of motor vehicles accident. This court is of the considered view that merely because certain ex-gratia amount is payable, the same cannot be deducted from the compensation - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 amount. The issue no. (b) is accordingly decided in favour of the claimant and against the State.” 19. In the case of Nusrat Jahan and Others Vs. Managing Director, Kalaburagi Electrical Supply Co., reported in 2020 SCC Online KAR 3325, it was held that deduction of ex-gratia amount in the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for employee’s compensation is not legal and liable to be set aside. “deduction of the said sum of Rs.5,00,000/- ex-gratia in the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation is not legal and liable to be set aside.” 20. In the case of Indian telephone Industries Ltd. And another Vs. Asha Rani Pandey and Others reported in 2013 SCC Online All 14768, it was held as follows: “it is clear that ex-gratia payment to anyone of the allowable dependent of the deceased, who dies in harness due - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 to motor accident cannot be taken as a ground to denied the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or to adjust the same from the compensation so awarded.” 21. The learned counsel of the appellant-insurance company argued that it is not a motor vehicle accident and it is a fire accident. As such, the ex gratia amount was paid by HPCL to the building owner and also to the persons who met with an accident who sustained injuries and they received the same. As such, the said ex gratia amount already paid to them is to be deducted. 22. On 09.04.2013, when the deceased/injured, as the case may be, were on the side of M.B. Road at Perne Village, the LPG gas loaded lorry bearing No.KA-01-AC-6600 capsized and LPG gas leaked and fire spread out. As a result, the deceased/injured sustained injuries. As such, ex gratia was paid by HPCL to them and later, the petitioner-claimants filed claim application before the MACT, claiming compensation. The accident arose out of the use of LPG tanker bearing No. KA-01- - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 AC-6600 and the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The claims under the Motor Vehicles Act were allowed and the reasonable compensation was granted as per the evidence on record. 23. In the citations referred above, it was held by the Apex Court that ex gratia granted by the Government cannot be deducted from the compensation as it was not clear as to whether the payment of ex gratia was a part of social security or it was a compensation for loss of income and the basis for calculation of the ex gratia, is not mentioned and whether the said ex gratia amount was relatable to the loss of pay and wages or any other factor, under which compensation is payable, under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was fairly held that certain ex gratia payable due cannot be deducted from the compensation. Therefore, it is clear from the above said judgments that if the deceased was having life insurance and if he gets any amount from the insurance company, that is not deductible from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. So also, if the deceased was an employee and he - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 gets any benefit, pecuniary advantages like provident fund, family pension, cash balance, share, service and deposits, it cannot be termed as if the deceased was an employee and if he gets any provident fund, family pension, cash balance, shares or fixed deposits, it cannot be termed as pecuniary advantage for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act and it cannot be deducted, so also the ex gratia granted by the HPCL, immediately after the accident, cannot be deducted from the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that ex gratia is not deductible from the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act. 24. Therefore, the following order is passed: (i) All the appeals are dismissed. (ii) The ex gratia amount paid by the HPCL cannot be deducted from the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39320 MFA No. 3791 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 3782 of 2017, MFA No. 3786 of 2017, MFA No. 3790 of 2017, MFA No. 3792 of 2017, MFA No. 4590 of 2017, MFA No. 4591 of 2017 & MFA No. 4592 of 2017 (iii) The appellant-insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, the respondent-petitioners/ claimants are permitted to withdraw the same along with the interest accrued on it, as per the apportionment granted by the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52