- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1240 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHRUTHI, W/O LATE KIRANKUMAR (NANDISHA), AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. 2. PREETHAM, S/O LATE KIRANKUMAR (NANDISHA), AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. SHRUTHI. 3. G.N.KRISHNEGOWDA, S/O NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 4. JAYAMMA, S/O G.N.KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 5. PREMA, D/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF GUNDKANAHALLI VILLAGE, GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BEHIND GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL CHANNAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 AND: 1. KUMARASWAMY, S/O PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DORANA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. 2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BM ROAD, OPPOSITE TO B.S.N.L. OFFICE, HASSAN - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.2134/2008 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., HASSAN. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 06.09.2013 passed in MVC No.2134/2008 by II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional M.A.C.T. at Hassan (for short “the Tribunal”), seeking enhancement of compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 11.06.2008, at about 12.30 a.m., i.e., in the mid night, the deceased Kirankumar @ Nandisha was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.20.E.2881, when he reached near Honnenahalli Gate, Hassan-Tiptur Road, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing registration No.KA.13.A/1246 by its driver. As a result, the deceased Kirankumar sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Further, it was stated that the deceased Kirankumar was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from his Cable Network and Milk Vending business. The claimants being his legal heirs and dependants, filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 No.1 filed his written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. It is also stated that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. In the event of awarding compensation, respondent No.2 be directed to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Respondent No.2-insurer filed its written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. It is also contended that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle have not been arrayed as parties. Therefore, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. The claimants to prove their case, examined two witnesses as PWs.-1 and 2 and marked 19 documents - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 as Exs.P1 to P19. Respondents examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3. 8. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that accident occurred due to involvement of the lorry bearing registration No.KA.13.A.1246. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 29 years, taken the income as Rs.6,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier '16' and awarded the following compensation:- Particulars Amount in (`) Loss of dependency 7,68,000-00 Loss of love and affection to the second petitioner 30,000-00 Loss of conjugal happiness to first petitioner 20,000-00 Loss of love and affection to the petitioners 3 to 5 60,000-00 Transportation of dead body 2,000-00 Funeral and obsequies 15,000-00 TOTAL 8,95,000-00 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 9. The claimants challenged the same on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and also filed an application to add some more grounds, i.e., fastening the liability on respondent No.2-insurer to pay the compensation and indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits the following points; a) The claimants examined an eye witness, who was travelling in the offending lorry, who stated about the accident in question. In the charge sheet filed along with enclosures, there is a reference of three eye witnesses to the incident. RW.2- Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has stated that he received a letter from the cleaner of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 offending vehicle about the involvement of the vehicle in the accident in question. b) The owner or insurer of the offending vehicle have not challenged the said charge sheet. c) Though the vehicle number is not mentioned in the FIR, that alone cannot be a ground to doubt the involvement of the offending vehicle if, during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer came to know about its involvement. d) It is not necessary in the motor vehicle compensation claim petitions to prove the negligence of the driver of the lorry beyond reasonable doubt. e) The Tribunal denied to fasten the liability on respondent No.2, to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. f) The Tribunal has not properly considered the income of the deceased and has made incorrect - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 deductions towards personal expenses. Therefore, inadequate compensation has been awarded. g) Since the policy of the insurance was in force as on the date of the accident, respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the owner and pay the compensation. h) The claimants could not recover the amount of compensation from respondent No.1 after filing of the execution petition. Therefore, they have filed this appeal along with an application seeking permission to raise a ground to fasten the liability on respondent No. 2 to pay the compensation. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurer submits the following points: a) There is a long delay in filing the complaint and recording the statement of alleged eye witnesses. The Investigating Officer, who submitted the charge sheet, admitted during cross-examination that he had not seen the letter allegedly written - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 by the cleaner, and that it was not included in the charge sheet. The said letter is not at all produced even before this Court along with other records. b) In the FIR, the vehicle number is not at all mentioned, though PW.1 has stated that the father-in-law had knowledge of the registration number of the lorry. c) The facts and circumstances of the case reveal that the so-called eyewitnesses listed in the charge sheet are planted witnesses, included solely to claim compensation through collusion between the claimant, the owner of the lorry, and the police. d) The Tribunal in the impugned judgment discussed this point in detail, and relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, as well as the Co-ordinate Bench, held that the said vehicle was implicated just to fasten the liability on respondent No.2. The said finding does not call for any - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Following points emerges for determination: i. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident was caused by the involvement of the said vehicle and absolved respondent No.2 from its liability to pay the compensation? ii. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation? iii. What order? 14. PW.1 is the wife of the deceased. In her evidence, she narrated the facts of the case. In the cross-examination, she has stated that her father-in-law, who lodged the complaint had knowledge of the registration number of the offending vehicle. Admittedly, she was not an eye witness to the incident. 15. The claimants examined another eye witness to the incident as PW.2 who has narrated the facts of the accident. According to him, he was a gratuitous passenger - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 travelling in the said vehicle. He has also stated that driver of the said vehicle was known to him and he boarded the said lorry to go to his village. He also stated about the presence of two more persons in the said lorry. 16. In his cross-examination, he stated that the road where the incident took place was not in good condition. He also admitted that he had not lodged any complaint with the police. Even after the incident, he did not make any effort to find out about the person who died in the accident. It was only about one and a half months later that the police came to his house to record his statement. He further stated that he did not file any complaint with the police because the lorry driver had threatened him. 17. Respondent No. 1, the owner of the offending vehicle, has filed a written statement admitting the fact of the accident. It is important to note that under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), it - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 was his duty to inform the police about the incident if he had knowledge of it or came to know about it later. However, in his written statement, he has not explained when he came to know about the accident, whether from the driver of the vehicle or from someone else. It remains unclear why he failed to report the incident to the police, despite the fact that the accident was caused by his employee. Moreover, having admitted the accident in his written statement, he did not choose to enter the witness box to support his contentions. This strengthens the inference that he had knowledge of the accident and failed in his duty to report it. Therefore, since the person involved in the incident has admitted that his vehicle was involved, there is no need for further discussion regarding the facts of the incident. 18. Whether the contention of respondent No.1 is bona fide is the next question to be answered. As already been stated above, inspite of his knowledge that his vehicle was involved in the accident, he did not care to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 report the incident to the Police about the involvement of the said vehicle. It appears that, for the first time, he disclosed this fact in his written statement, which raises doubts about the conduct of respondent No. 1. 19. It is true that, in motor vehicle claim petitions, the burden of proving the accident is not as strict as in criminal proceedings—there is no doubt about that. However, the conduct of the witnesses is also highly relevant in this case. According to the evidence of RW.2, the course of the investigation changed after the receipt of a letter allegedly written by the cleaner of the offending lorry. Strangely, this crucial piece of evidence, which could have supported the prosecution, was not included in the charge sheet. RW.2, who holds the rank of Circle Inspector of Police and who submitted the charge sheet, admitted that he had not seen the said letter. It is true that he was not the Investigating Officer in the case, but the charge sheet was filed prima facie on the belief that the accused had committed the offence. Another mistake on his part - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 was that he failed to observe whether there was any damage to the offending lorry when he examined it. 20. From the evidence of PW.2, it appears that the investigation was not conducted in accordance with law. Based on the materials available on record, and as rightly observed by the Tribunal, there appears to be a false implication of the offending lorry solely to claim compensation. Any prudent person can infer that there is collusion between the claimants and the owner and driver of the said lorry. Therefore, the Tribunal absolved the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation. The said findings do not require any interference by this Court. 21. The Act is a benevolent legislation enacted to protect the interests of victims of the accidents, or the legal heirs of the deceased in such accidents. However, merely submitting a charge sheet, a driver pleading guilty, or admitting the occurrence of an accident in a motor vehicle claim petition is not sufficient to fasten liability on - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 the insurer. The contractual relationship between the insurer and the insured is founded on trust and confidence. If the owner of the vehicle commits fraud against the insurance company to wrongfully make it liable to pay compensation to the claimants, then under such circumstances, the insurance company cannot be directed to pay compensation. In view of the foregoing discussion, Point No. 1 is answered against the claimants/appellants. 22. Respondent No. 1 has admitted that the accident occurred as narrated in the above paragraphs. Therefore, he is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal, following the law laid down, awarded compensation as described earlier. It is true that the Tribunal did not apply the correct multiplier. For the age group between 26 and 30, the applicable multiplier is 17. The Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.6,000 per month which is not disputed. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 23. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses. There are five dependents on the deceased, therefore, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses. As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. 24. As per the above said decision, as well as the law laid down in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the compensation under the conventional head has to be awarded. 25. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to the following amount of compensation:- Particulars Amount in (`) Loss of dependency (Rs.6,000/- + 40% x 12 x 17 - 1/4th) 12,85,200-00 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 5) 2,00,000-00 Funeral expenses 15,000-00 Loss of estate 15,000-00 TOTAL- 15,15,200-00 Amount awarded by the Tribunal- Enhancement- Rounded off- 8,95,000-00 6,20,200-00 6,20,000-00 26. The claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. Respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the said amount. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered. 27. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Appeal is allowed-in-part; ii. The judgment and award dated 06.09.2013, passed in MVC No.2134/2008, by II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional M.A.C.T. at Hassan, stands modified; - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26205 MFA No. 1240 of 2015 iii. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realisation; iv. Respondent No.1 - owner of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award; v. The remaining portion of the award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered; vi. Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal; Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK