- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 203604 OF 2024 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200727 OF 2025 (MV-D) IN MFA No.203604/2024: BETWEEN: THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN. INSU. CO. LTD. 1ST FLOOR, V.A. KALHURGI SQUARE, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBALI NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY …APPELLANT (BY SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NEETA W/O LATE BHARATH JADHAV AGE 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD (WIDOW OF DECEASED BHARATH JADHAV) (ADHAAR CARD NO.7120 9861 5725) 2. VEDANT S/O LATE BHARATH JADHAV Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 AGE 12 YEARS, (MINOR) UNDER THE GUARDIAN OF MOTHER NEETA W/O LATE BHARATH JADHAV/PETITIONER NO. 1 (SON OF DECEASED BHARATH JADHAV) 3. SAKASHANT S/O LATE BHARATH JADHAV AGE 9 YRS. (MINOR) UNDER THE GUARDIAN OF MOTHER NEETA W/O LATE BHARATH JADHAV/PETITIONER NO. 1 (SON OF DECEASED BHARATH JADHAV) 4. KUM. DISHA D/O LATE BHARATH JADHAV AGE 8 YRS. (MINOR) UNDER THE GUARDIAN OF MOTHER NEETA W/O LATE BHARATH JADHAV/PETITIONER NO. 1 (SON OF DECEASED BHARATH JADHAV) ALL R/O VILLAGE SAIGAON TQ. BHALKI DIST. BIDAR - 585 328. 5. MR. HANUMANTH S/O PEERAPPA AGE MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF MAHINDRA BOLERO BEARING REGN. NO. KA-32/C-9617 R/O H. NO.1/111, CHANDRAMAPALLI TQ. CHINCHOLI, DIST. KALABURAGI - 585 307. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1; SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADV. FOR R5; R2 TO R4 ARE MINOR REPTD. BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.389/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BIDAR (SITTING AT BHALKI) b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2024 IN MVC NO.389/2021 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BIDAR (SITTING AT BHALKI) BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 IN MFA No.200727/2025: BETWEEN: 1. NEETA W/O LATE BHARATH JADHAV AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD 2. VEEDANT S/O LATE BHARATH JADHAV AGE 11 YEARS, 3. SAKASHANT S/O LATE BHARATH JADHAV AGE 8 YEARS, 4. KUM. DISHA D/O LATE BHARATH JADHAV AGE 7 YEARS, THE APPELLANTS No.2-4 ARE THE MINOR AND ARE REPRESENTED THROGH THEIR NATURAL MOTHER NEETA W/O LATE BHARATH JADHAV/APPELLANT NO. 1 ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE SAIGAON TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR - 585 416. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVI B PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. HANUMANTH S/O PEERAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR OCC. OWNER OF MAHINDRA BOLERO BEARING REG. No.KA-32-C9617 R/O H.NO.1/111, CHANDRAMPALLI TQ.CHINCHOLI, DIST.KALABURAGI – 585307. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 2. THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM M/S GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, V A DESHPANDE NAGAR, KALHURGI SQUARE, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBALLI – 580020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S S ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DATED 04.04.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.389/2021 ON THE FILE OF ADDL, DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR (SITTING AT BHALKI) B) MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR (SITTING AT BHALKI) BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY C) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) These two appeals are filed calling in question the judgment and award dated 19.07.2024 in MVC No.389/2021, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bidar (sitting at Bhalki). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 2. MFA No.203604/2024 is filed by the Appellant - Insurance Company for fastening contributory negligence on the part of the deceased i.e., driver of the DCM bearing No.MH 04 FP 5105 and on quantum. Whereas, MFA No.200727/2025 is filed by the claimants/appellants seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle and the death of Bharat son of Narayan Rao Jadhav are not dispute. The only dispute as per the Insurance Company is, the Tribunal has failed fasten the contributory negligence on the deceased for parking the vehicle without observing any traffic rules i.e., indicator lights and sign board and on quantum of compensation. The dispute so far as claimants/appellants is concerned, it is in respect of inadequate compensation, as the Tribunal has not properly considered the income of the deceased. 4. Heard Sri S.S. Aspalli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company in MFA No.2003604/2024 and Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 appellants/claimants in MFA.No.200727/2025 and Sri Sanju Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 in both the appeals. 5. Sri S.S. Aspalli, with all vehemence submits that the accident had taken place on the spot at 01.45 a.m. on 12.06.2021, near Pillar No.1281, Namapally Metro Station, Hyderabad. The DCM was wrongly parked, without observing any traffic rules i.e., without putting the indicators on or any sign board. As the accident occurred in the midnight, only because the said lorry was parked in the spot without any sign board and the spot was not a place for parking or stationing the vehicle. He has relied on Ex.P7 - the copy of charge sheet filed by the Police Inspector, P.S. Namapally (Law and Order), Hyderabad, wherein the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘MVC Act’) also invoked against the driver of the offending Bolero vehicle. The learned counsel argues that provisions involved are the penal provisions for not possessing permit. In the alternative, he has submitted that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 Tribunal ought to have considered that the deceased also contributed towards the negligence, while parking the lorry wrongly at the spot which is not marked/meant for parking and unloading the goods from the vehicle. He submits that, the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation in the absence of any material proof to that effect. Accordingly, he sought to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and award passed against the Insurance Company or in the alternative, fasten the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and reduce the compensation to the extent of contributory negligence. 6. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellate - Insurance Company, Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA No.200727/2025 with all vehemence submits that the charge sheet filed against the appellants/claimants at Ex.P7 being No.170/2021, the provisions invoked are only under Sections 304(II) and 279 of IPC. In the said final report the provisions of MV Act are not at all forthcoming. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 The documents at Ex.R3 produced by the Insurance Company does not contain any certification, except the seal of Inspector of Police P.S. Namapally, (L and O), Hyderabad. There is no signature of any officer forthcoming to substantiate that the document, is a certified copy. That apart the document does not contain the charge sheet number. The penal provisions under MV Act, shown are not at all reflected in the charge sheet which is filed before the jurisdiction magistrate containing the charge sheet number. This clearly shows that the said document is fake one and produced only to escape from the liability to pay the compensation. The police have clearly stated that the accident happened under the metro station at Pillar No.1281. 7. Though it was in the midnight at 01.45 a.m., however, there were street lights, under which the stationed lorry is visible to every person. The rash and negligence with which the driver drove the bolero is clearly reflected in the charge sheet. In these circumstances, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 Tribunal after appreciating the entire materials placed before it has come to a right conclusion with reasoned order that it is the driver of the offending Bolero vehicle is responsible for the accident and accordingly fastened the entire liability on the driver of the insured holding that he is responsible for the accident and accordingly, answered issue No.1 in ‘affirmative’. In view of the charge sheet filed before the jurisdictional Court invoking the provisions under the IPC. The charge sheet at Ex.P7 clearly shows that the vehicle is having all permit in terms of law. Added to this, the Insurance Company has not examined any person or investigation officer of Namapally Police Station to substantiate their claim regarding producing of the alleged charge sheet at Ex.R2. 8. He further states that, the witness examined on behalf of the Insurance Company is one Bahubali S. Kujer, the officer of the Insurance Company, who has stated his evidence on the basis of police records. Ex.R2 has been falsified in the presence of Ex.P7, which is the certified - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 copy of charge sheet, filed before the Jurisdictional Court. The charge sheet at Ex.P.7 containing the charge sheet number as well as showing the provisions under which the charge sheet has been filed against the driver. With this learned counsel stated that the charge sheet at Ex.R3 does not contain any seal or signature in order to bring it within the meaning of certified copy. In these circumstances, the grounds urged by the appellant - Insurance Company does not hold any water and requires to be rejected. 9. So far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has failed to consider the income properly. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.15,000/-. The deceased was owner of DCM truck as well as driver. He has got a shop and shop license which is produced at Ex.P11. The accident admittedly had occurred in the year 2021. For a shop owner, driver and owner of a DCM truck, the income at the rate of Rs.15,000 i.e. Rs.500 per day, is on the lower side. The deceased was stated to be earning - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 Rs.18,000/- per month, the same ought to have taken by the Tribunal. There are four defendants survived the deceased. The Tribunal has taken 1/3rd instead of 1/4th. The same requires re-consideration and accordingly, the compensation required to be enhanced. 10. At this juncture, Sri S.S. Aspalli taken us through the judgment and award towards conventional heads. The Tribunal has awarded in all Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and the same as per the counsel is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in umpteen number of cases. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.1,00,000 towards love and affection to petitioner No.1 and Rs.50,000/- each to three children that comes to Rs.1,50,000. The same requires re- consideration. 11. Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5. in both the appeals, with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal after considering the entire case - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 on merits properly awarded compensation and fastened the liability on the insurer to pay the compensation, which does not call for any interference and supported the judgment and award. Accordingly sought to dismiss both the appeals. 12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers as well as trial court record, the points that would arise for compensation in the light of the arguments advanced are as under: i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the appellant - insurance company in MFA No.2023604/2024? ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in passing award? If not, whether the same requires any modification, in view of submission by both the appellant - - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 insurance company as well as the appellants/claimants. 13. Our answer to the above point No.1 for consideration is in ‘affirmative’. Point No.2 - ‘partly in affirmative’ in both the appeals. REASONS 14. As could be seen from the records, there are two charge sheet produced one at Ex.P7 by the appellants/claimants and another at Ex.R3 by the appellant-Insurance Company. We have gone through both the documents. The document at Ex.P7 is the certified copy issued by the Central Copyist Establishment Metropolitan Criminal Court, Hyderabad, bearing the signature of the officer who has issued the copy along with the round seal of the said court. The charge sheet clearly depicts the number as charge sheet No.170/2021 for the offences under Section 304 (II), 279 of IPC. Whereas the Ex.R3 charge sheet produced by the appellant - Insurance - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 Company does not contain any seal or signature, without any certification as to hold that the same is a certified copy issued by a competent authority, except a seal stating Inspector of Police P.S. Namapally (L and O), Hyderabad. As could be seen from both the documents, Ex.P7, the certified copy clearly shows the penal provisions invoked under Section 304(II), 279 of IPC. Whereas Ex.R3, apart from penal provisions under the IPC contains the penal provisions under the MV Act also. 15. The reason stated in the concluding paragraph, the Investigating Officer who has filed the charge sheet has clearly stated that the deceased person got down and unloading bag of jawari from the carrier backside of DCM. At that time, the driver of the Mahindra Bolero jeep came and drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner even after having the knowledge that his negligent driving may cause death of a human being and dashed the deceased from behind, due to which the deceased got stuck between the Bolero and DCM and succumbed to injuries on the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 spot. Thus, committed offence under Section 304 (II) and 279 of IPC. Whereas in Ex.R3, It is stated that the driver of the Bolero vehicle was driving the vehicle without possessing proper documents of the vehicle. Thus, apart from the penal provisions under IPC the penal provision under MV Act were also invoked. This creates suspicion regarding the genuineness of the document produced by the appellant – Insurance. Ex.P7 is the certificate issued by a competent Court, before whom the police after final investigation filed the charge sheet being No.170/2021. Whereas the document at Ex.R3 does not contain any certification regarding its genuinity as to whether it is a certified copy of the very same document which has been filed by the police before the concerned jurisdictional magistrate except a seal depicting as Inspector of Police, P.S. Namapally (L and O), Hyderabad. In these circumstances, it becomes very hard for us to believe the said document is genuine and accept the contentions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 Company based on the said document. When the same was brought to the notice of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company, is unable to explain as to why there are substantial changes in both the documents. However, without much deliberating on the issue, we conclude that the Tribunal is justified after going through the entire documents produced by the claimants as well as the insurance company and held that the driver of the offending Bolero vehicle is responsible for the accident and accordingly, fasten the entire liability on the insurance company to make good the compensation. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 as ‘affirmative’ against the appellant insurance company and in favour of appellants/claimants. 16. So far as quantum is concerned, before dwelling on the loss of dependency, we feel it necessary to answer the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company, so far as compensation awarded under the conventional heads. The - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under the conventional heads i.e., Rs.50,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of estate, Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of spousal consortium and Rs.1,50,000/- towards filial consortium to other appellants (children of deceased). As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED V. NANU RAM & OTHERS1, a compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the filial consortium is to be awarded. In this case, there are four claimants. Each of them are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and same comes to Rs.1,60,000. So far as loss of estate and funeral expenses is concerned, Rs.15,000/- each has been awarded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma (supra) and same is required to be awarded in the case as well. There is no reason forthcoming for the awarding exorbitant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under the conventional heads by the 1 2018 ACJ 2782 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 Tribunal. In these circumstances, upholding the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company in MFA 2003604/2024, we modify the compensation awarded under the conventional heads and restrict the same in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma (Supra). 17. So far as compensation under the head loss of dependency is concerned, there are documents produced by the claimants i.e., shop license and also the fact that the deceased was owning a lorry so also driver of the lorry. The Tribunal has proceeded to consider the income at Rs.15,000/- per month. The year of accident was 2021. For a owner cum driver of a lorry having a shop and license run the same at Rs.500/- per day is highly on the lower side. In these circumstances, a sum of Rs.600/- per day if taken, would meet ends of justice. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was earning Rs.80,000/- per month. However on query, he has not produced any - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 document to substantiate the same. If a person is earning Rs.80,000 per month/-, he is bound under law to pay income tax in terms of income tax slab for the year 2021. The appellants have not produced any income tax returns. That apart, except shop license, they have not produced any document to show what is the income generated/earned by the deceased per day or per month. Having considered that the deceased was driver cum owner, we have fixed the income as stated supra. The said income required to be added 30% towards future prospectus as the deceased 40 years as on the date of death as per PM report produced at Ex.P4. The Tribunal has failed to consider 10% escalation on the conventional heads. So also the Tribunal has taken the multiplier 14, instead of 15, as the deceased was aged 40 years. So also the deduction ought to have been taken 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. In these circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires a re-determination and re- consideration. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 18. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to re- determine the compensation as under: Loss Dependency (Rs.18,000 + 30% x 12 x 15 x ¾) : Rs. 30,37,500/- Loss of Filial Consortium : Rs. 1,60,000/- Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses : Rs. 30,000/- 10% for one completed three years 19,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 32,46,500/- Accordingly the appellants/claimants in MFA No.200727/2025 are entitled to a sum of Rs.32,46,500/- as compensation as against Rs.25,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Both the appeals being MFA No.203604/2024 and MFA No. 200727/2025 are allowed in part. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 ii) The judgment and award dated 19.07.2024 in MVC No.389/2021, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bidar (sitting at Bhalki) is hereby modified. iii) In MFA No.203604/2024, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads reduced from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.1,90,000/-. iv) In MFA No.20727/2025, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been re- determined to Rs.32,46,500/- as against Rs.25,84,000/-. v) The re-determined compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. vi) The amount in deposit In MFA No.203604/2024 shall be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4947-DB MFA No. 203604 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 200727 of 2025 vii) The appellant - insurance company in MFA No.203604/2024 and respondent in MFA No. 200727/2025 shall deposit the balance re-determined compensation with interest supra before the concerned Tribunal within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. viii) The apportionment as well as disbursement is unaltered. ix) No order as to cost. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE THM/-