- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8691 MFA No. 103050 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103050 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SAKAMMA @ PARIMALA W/O SIDDALINGAPPA, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: SOVENAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI … APPELLANT (BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ERANNA S.T. S/O THIMMANNA T., AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE BUS BEARING REGD. NO.KA-16/9326, R/O: YEDDALA BOMMAYYANAHATTI VILLAGE, TQ: MOLAKALMOOR, DIST: CHITRADURGA. 2. SYED JILANI S/O SYED NADEALI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING REGD. NO.KA-16/9326, R/O: KALGODMOHALLA, MOLAKALMOOR TOWN, TQ: MOLAKALMOOR, DIST: CHITRADURGA. 3. THE MANAGER, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE, BALLARI (POLICY NO.1406712340000188 VALID FROM 22/08/2011 TO 21/08/2012) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 28.08.2014, PASSED IN MVC. NO.100/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM MEMBER VI-MACT AT KUDLIGI, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8691 MFA No. 103050 of 2014 ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 28.08.2014 passed in MVC No.100/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge cum Member-VI, MACT, Kudligi1, thereby the claim petition filed by the claimant is dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed on record. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE: 4. On 12.11.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., the claimant, who was pregnant travelling in the bus bearing 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8691 MFA No. 103050 of 2014 Reg.No.KA-16/9326 in order to go to her parental house for delivery purpose, at that time, accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and the bus was turtled down on the left side. Due to the said impact, the claimant had sustained injuries and there is an injury to the stomach of the claimant, but thereafter the claimant delivered two twin babies on 03.12.2011 at about 3.45 a.m. After delivery, both twin babies are dead due to accidental injuries sustained as above stated. Therefore, the claim petition was filed for claiming compensation. However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the reason that there is no evidence that the death of still born babies was due to accidental injuries. 5. Questioning the same, the appellant/claimant has preferred this present appeal by raising various grounds and learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the accident is caused on 12.11.2011 and the claimant has delivered two still born babies (twins) on 03.12.2011 and the death of two still born babies is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8691 MFA No. 103050 of 2014 because of assault in the accident to the stomach. Therefore, two still born babies died in the womb itself and hence, they were born as still born babies. Though there is an evidence of the doctor in this regard, but the Tribunal has not appreciated the same correctly, resulting into passing of erroneous judgment and award. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and grant appropriate compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submitted that there is no nexus between the injury to the stomach and delivery of two still born babies (twins). Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submitted that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KISHAN GOPAL & ANR VS LALA & ORS2 (Kishan Gopal Case) cannot be followed as the difference in the above facts that the 2 (2014) 1 SCC 244 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8691 MFA No. 103050 of 2014 children are alive in the world, but in the present case, two still born babies died in the womb itself. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Upon considering the evidence on record viz., complaint, FIR, spot panchanama and charge sheet, it is proved that on 12.11.2011 the claimant was travelling in the bus and the bus met with an accident and in the said accident, the claimant has sustained injuries to the stomach and other parts of the body. The claimant was pregnant at that time of accident therefore, she was going to her parents home for delivery purpose, but in the mean time, the accident was occurred and as per the case of the claimant on 03.12.2011, the claimant has given delivery to two still born babies (twins). 9. The time gap between the date of accident and delivery of two still born babies is 20 days. Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate, which shows that the claimant suffered injuries to the left ear and right thigh and hip region. Therefore, the learned counsel for respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8691 MFA No. 103050 of 2014 No.3/Insurance Company with reference to this wound certificate argued that there is no reference of mentioning injury to the stomach. Therefore, there was no nexus between the accident and death of two still born babies (twins). 10. When accident occurs, there may be minor injuries which do not seen externally for appearance like tenderness or any other injuries. In the accident, there may be every possibility of causing injury to the stomach also. Just because in the wound certificate, there is no mentioning of injury to the stomach, is not a ground to say that the claimant has not sustained injuries to the stomach. 11. Further, upon considering the statement of claimant and their mother given before the Police during investigation, it is stated that the claimant has suffered injury to the left ear and right thigh. Therefore, one thing is proved that the claimant has sustained injuries in the accident. Just because there is no writing in the wound - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8691 MFA No. 103050 of 2014 certificate that the claimant suffered injuries to the stomach that is not the ground to say that the claimant has suffered injury to the stomach also. 12. The Doctor has given evidence as PW-4 that on 03.12.2011 the claimant had admitted to the hospital with history of delivery pain and upon examination of her, there is no heartbeat of the babies. The claimant was suffering stiffness in her stomach there were twins in the womb of the claimant and they were not breathing at that time, the claimant was 9 months old pregnant woman. It is evidence of the Doctor that when a pregnant woman sustained injuries in the accident and if there is an injury to the stomach, then the babies died or under chances of pre- mature delivery. 13. Upon considering this evidence/PW-4, it is proved that due to the injury to the stomach of the claimant and at that time she was 9 months old pregnant woman, two still born babies (twins) died in the womb itself and the claimant delivered twins as still born babies. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8691 MFA No. 103050 of 2014 Since PW-4/Doctor is not an eye witness, but his evidence is based on the medical examination and he has stated reasons that if there is any assault injuries to the stomach in the accident, then there are every chances and possibilities of delivering still born babies. Therefore, it is proved from the evidence on record that due to the injury to the stomach of the claimant, two still born babies (twins) have died. In this regard, the Tribunal has committed an error as its approach is proved to be perverse in nature. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Therefore, it is held that the death of two still born babies (twins), who are in the womb of the claimant died due to the accidental injuries as discussed above. Hence, the claimant is entitled compensation. REGARDING QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: 14. In the present case, due to ill-fate of two still born babies (twins), who lost their breathe before entering the world. Therefore, what would be the parameter to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8691 MFA No. 103050 of 2014 award compensation in the facts and circumstances involved in the case, is to be looked into. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down principle of law in Kishan Gopal case (Supra), what would be the appropriate compensation awarded in case of death of children. In that case, the Hon’ble Apex Court by considering the age of the children and they are non earning members in the family and considered notional income of Rs.30,000/- and applying multiplier ‘15’ has awarded compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- and addition of Rs.50,000/- on other incidental expenses totally awarded Rs.5,00,000/-. 16. In the present case, though two still born babies died in the womb of the claimant and they cannot be considered as earning members, but they are still considered as children of the claimant. Therefore, for the purpose of making quantification of compensation, this Court follows the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal (Supra) to award just - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8691 MFA No. 103050 of 2014 compensation. Because of no fault of the claimant, two still born babies lost their lives before blinking their eyes in the world. Accordingly, it would be just and appropriate to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of each baby, which would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, in the present case, two still born babies died in the womb of the mother due to the accidental injuries. Hence, claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The Insurance Company shall deposit total compensation to the claimant within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 17. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 28.08.2014 passed in MVC No.100/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge cum - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8691 MFA No. 103050 of 2014 Member-VI, MACT, Kudligi is set aside. The claim petition is allowed in part. iii. The claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv. The Insurance Company shall deposit total compensation to the claimant within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. v. No order as to costs. vi. Draw award accordingly. vii. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 131