- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30198 MFA No. 4501 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4501 OF 2020 (MV-D) BETWEEN: M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144 2ND FLOOR, SUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY G.SHIVAKUMAR ASSISTANT MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SMT. GEETHA R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. D.N. SHEELAVATHI W/O LATE KUMARASWAMY G.N AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. HEMANTH KUMAR G.K S/O LATE KUMARASWAMY G.N AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS 3. RAKSHITHA G.K D/O KUMARASWAMY G.N AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS ALL RESIDING AT GUNGARAMALE VILLAGE TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA-572 224 AND ALSO RESIDING AT C/O KRISHNE GOWDE G.N Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30198 MFA No. 4501 of 2020 NO.237, 13TH MAIN MANJUNATHNAGAR WEST OF CHORD ROAD BANGALORE-560 010 4. MRS LATHA SANJAY W/O SANJAY B R/AT DEEPTHI YASH NILAYA 2ND CROSS, SRINAGAR, NEAR PARK DEVARAYAPATNA POST TUMKUR-572 104 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. VENKATE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. MALLEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.17.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.3258/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRL. MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.22,50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30198 MFA No. 4501 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant/insurance company, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17.02.2020 passed in M.V.C.No.3258/2018 by the Member, Principal MACT at Bengaluru, has preferred this appeal on the ground that, when the said accident took place, there was no negligence on the part of the offending driver of the Nano Car bearing registration No.KA-06-P-4457 and equally, the deceased, Kumaraswamy, was also responsible for causing the said accident because of his negligent driving of his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-W-9263. Another ground made out in the appeal is that, the income assessed by the tribunal is on higher side. The deceased Kumaraswamy was an agriculturist as per the documents produced and he was not at all earning Rs.15,000/- as assessed by the tribunal and such an assessment is on higher side. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that, the said accident has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30198 MFA No. 4501 of 2020 taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Nano Car by its driver. He submits that, deceased was an agriculturist and also used to sell milk and also was owning a tractor of his own. Therefore, whatever the income being assessed by the tribunal is reasonable and such a finding of the tribunal cannot be interfered with. 3. So far as accident that occurred at 10.30 am on 19.03.2018 in between the Nano Car bearing registration No.KA-06-P-4457 and the motorcycle ridden by deceased Kumaraswamy bearing registration No.KA-13-W-9263 is not in dispute. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company that, on perusal of the sketch as well as M.V. Report, it was a head-on collision and both the vehicles have been substantially damaged. Therefore, there is an equal negligence on the part of the deceased in driving the motorcycle. She submits that, in view of the evidence spoken to by the witnesses, especially the evidence of PW1 and PW2, who were stated to be eyewitnesses, it is proved by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30198 MFA No. 4501 of 2020 insurance company that, even the deceased was also equally negligent in riding his motorcycle. She further submits that, except RTC extract, copy of the RC book and the book issued by the milk diary, no other documents are produced to substantiate the income of deceased at Rs.15,000/- or more as alleged in the petition. Therefore, such evidence cannot be accepted. 4. When the insurance company has questioned the negligence attributed to the driver of the Nano Car, we have to read the evidence placed on record by the petitioner to ascertain who was negligent in causing the said accident. Evidently, PW1 is not an eyewitness to the said incident. Therefore, her evidence would not help in any manner with regard to the negligence. Whereas PW2, by name G.N.Jayaramegowda, stated as an eyewitness, has come before the tribunal and has stated that, because of the rash and negligent driving of the Nano Car only, the said accident has taken place. He states in his evidence that, he is an eyewitness to the said accident. At - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30198 MFA No. 4501 of 2020 19.03.2018 at 10.30 am, himself and deceased Kumaraswamy were riding their respective motorcycles on the left side of the road near Doddagatta in front of the JCB Lokesh Coconut Garden on Turuvekere-Tiptur Road. At that time, a Nano Car bearing registration No.KA-06-P- 4457 driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life at a high speed in a zig-zag manner from the opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased Kumaraswamy. 5. Due to this impact, Kumaraswamy fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries over his vital parts of the body. This PW2 was riding his Bajaj Discovery vehicle behind the Kumaraswamy's vehicle and immediately deceased was taken to the Turuvekere Government Hospital, but he died subsequently because of accidental injuries. This PW2 was cross-examined by the insurance company. It is elicited that, where the said accident has taken place, the road is 18 feet wide. His brother was holding a valid driving licence. It is admitted - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30198 MFA No. 4501 of 2020 that, the right portion of the Car got damaged so also motorcycle driven by his brother, i.e., Kumaraswamy, but he denied that, it was head-on collision. Except this, nothing is elicited from the mouth of this PW2 so as to disbelieve his version given in the examination-in-chief. 6. Coupled with this, the claimants relied upon the police records like Ex. P1 - the FIR wherein it shows that, a complaint was lodged alleging rash and negligent driving of a Nano Car by its driver, and because of the same, the said accident has taken place. The Ex. P2 is the Spot Panchanama, showing where exactly the said accident has taken place. Ex. P3 is the sketch. The sketch depicts where exactly the said accident has taken place. As per the evidence so brought on record, the deceased and PW2 were moving from Turuvekere towards Tiptur side to reach their native place on the left side of the road. As per the complaint and FIR, this Nano Car was coming from Tiptur side towards Turuvekere. At the scene of offence, the road has a width of 21 feet. The sketch shows that, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30198 MFA No. 4501 of 2020 deceased was riding his motorbike at a distance of 5 feet away from the edge of the tar road towards northern side. That means, he was very well on his left side of the road. What made the Nano Car driver to drive his vehicle towards the extreme right side of the road and dash against the motorcycle, there is no explanation offered by the respondents. Though the Nano Car driver had about 17 feet width road towards his left side, he came towards the extreme right side and dashed to the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The Motor Vehicle Report, relied upon by the counsel for the insurance company shows that, substantial damages have been caused to both the vehicles because, there was a head-on collision. The multiple damages caused to both the vehicles shows that, the Nano Car driver was definitely in high speed and leaving aside 17 feet available road, came to his right side and dashed to the motorcycle. At that time, deceased was riding his motorbike at a distance of 5 feet away from the left side of the road, which was his correct side. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30198 MFA No. 4501 of 2020 Therefore, the submission of the counsel for the appellant that, deceased was also rash and negligent in riding his motorbike, cannot be accepted. It is very much clear, as observed by the tribunal that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of Nano Car by its driver. 7. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned tribunal has awarded in all Rs.22,50,000/- compensation under various components like loss of dependency, funeral expenses and loss of consortium to the first petitioner, loss of estate, loss of parental consortium to the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. 8. It is the grievance of the appellant - insurance company that, the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- by the tribunal is on the higher side. It is submitted that, except the self-serving evidence of PW1 coupled with the certain RTC extracts, a passbook issued by the milk diary and the copy of the RC book showing the ownership of the Tractor by the deceased, no - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30198 MFA No. 4501 of 2020 documents are produced by the claimants. Therefore, the income so arrived at by the tribunal is on the higher side. While assessing the income of the deceased, the tribunal at Para 19 has discussed that, "as per the deed of partition, the deceased got the landed property in his name as per the RTC extract produced as Ex.P14. It shows that, the deceased owned a land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas standing in his name. The tribunal also relied upon the passbook issued by the Milk Producers Co- operative Society at Ex.P15. So also relied upon a copy of the registration certificate of the Tractor". 9. Relying upon these documents, the tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. It is submitted that, in the absence of proof of income, as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, as the accident has taken place in the year 2018, the tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,500/-. Thus, it is submitted that assessment of the national - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30198 MFA No. 4501 of 2020 income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- is on the higher side. As per the documents produced stated supra, i.e., RTC extract, it shows the name of the deceased as the owner both in column Nos.10 and 12. Name of the crop is shown as 'coconut'. He also owned a tractor, as per the contents of copy of the RC Book produced at Ex.P13. No doubt there is no evidence to show that, the said Tractor was being rented out by the deceased to earn an income, but it must have been used for his agricultural operations. So also, Ex.P15 is relied upon by the tribunal. Based on these documents, the tribunal has rightly assessed income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. Thus, I do not find any factual error committed by the tribunal in arriving at a notional income of Rs.15,000/- by the tribunal. Therefore, the submission of the appellant that the income so assessed by the tribunal is on the higher side cannot be accepted. 10. I have scrupulously perused the findings of the tribunal with regard to the awarding of compensation on - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30198 MFA No. 4501 of 2020 various components like "loss of dependency, funeral expenses and loss of consortium" etc., I do not find any factual or legal error in awarding such compensation. Even being dissatisfied with the said compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have not preferred any appeal. It is fairly submitted by the counsel for the respondents that, no appeal is preferred seeking enhancement. Perhaps the claimants must have been satisfied with the said award so passed. Rightly the learned Tribunal has applied the principles and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Based upon the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the principle laid down therein, the tribunal has rightly passed the award. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30198 MFA No. 4501 of 2020 11. Resultantly, pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned order dated 17.02.2020 passed in MVC.No.3258/2018 by the Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed. (iii) The amount in deposit be transferred to the tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23