- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101803 OF 2020 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103658 OF 2019 (MV-D) IN MFA NO. 101803 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. IBRAHIMSAB S/O. RAJESAB NADAF, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK, R/O. MALLUR VILLAGE, TQ. BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. 2. MODINABI W/O. IBRAHIMSAB NADAF, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MALLUR VILLAGE, TQ. BYADGI, DIST : HAVERI-581106. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ J. APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHABBIRAHAMAD S/O. ABDULNABISAB RATTIHALLI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK, R/O. MALLUR VILLAGE, TQ. BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGE, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HARIHANTHA PLAZA, 2ND FLOOR, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBALI-580023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJESH B. RAJANAL, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY BY ENHANCING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.07.2019 IN MVC NO.363/2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC & MACT, BYADGI AND ALLOW THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO. 103658 OF 2019 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, HARIHANTHA PLAZA, 2ND FLOOR, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBLI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580029. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJESH B. RAJANAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. IBRAHIMSAB S/O. RAJEESAB NADAF, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK, R/O. MALLUR VILLAGE IN BYADGI TALUKA, DIST : HAVERI. 2. MODINABI W/O. IBRAHIMSAB NADAF, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MALLUR VILLAGE IN BYADGI TALUKA, DIST : HAVERI. 3. SHABBIRAHAMAD S/O. ABDULNABISAB RATTIHALLI, AGE : MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE WORK, R/O. MALLUR VILLAGE IN BYADGI TALUKA, DIST : HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ J. APPANNANAVAR, ADV. FOR R1 & R2; NOTICE TO R3 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.07.2019 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AND MACT BYADGI IN M.V.C NO.363/2018, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) These two appeals arise out of a single judgment dated 02.07.2019 passed in MVC No.363/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Byadgi, (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal” for short). MFA No.101803/2020 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and MFA No.103658/2019 is filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle questioning the quantum as well as liability fastened on it. 2. Parties to these appeals are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts made out by the claimants before the Tribunal are, that deceased Mustaksab, the son of the claimants died in a motor vehicle accident at 3.00 p.m. on 21.02.2018, when he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/EF-0800 from Khurdakodihalli towards Mallur side because of rash and negligent riding of the vehicle owned by respondent No.1. During his life time, he was a mason by profession and earning Rs.25,000/-p.m. The petitioners being his parents - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 have lost their earning member, as they were depending upon his income. Both the respondents were liable to pay the compensation and hence, prayed to award the compensation as claimed. 4. Pursuant to the notice, both the respondents appeared and filed their independent objections denying the assertion with regard to the said accident, rash and negligent driving of the motorbike by the rider, quantum of compensation claimed. Respondent No.1 (owner of the motorbike) contended that, the rider of the motorbike was holding effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident, and his motorbike was insured with respondent No.2. It is respondent No.2 who is liable to deposit the compensation. It is contended that, he is not liable to pay compensation. 5. Whereas respondent No.2 contends that, the said accident has taken place not because of any rash and negligent riding of the motorbike. Its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The rider was not possessing the valid and effective driving licence. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 Respondent No.2 disputes the age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is contended that, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Based upon the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed in all five issues. 7. To substantiate the assertions made in the petition, claimant No.1 entered the witness box as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 17 and closed claimants evidence. With consent of claimants, Exs.R1 and R2 are marked on behalf of the respondents. No independent evidence is led by the respondents. 8. The learned Tribunal having heard the arguments of both the side and on perusal of the evidence, came to the conclusion that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent riding of the offending motorbike by its rider. At the time of accident, the rider was possessing the effective and valid driving licence. As on the date of the accident, the insurance policy was in force in respect of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 offending vehicle. Though it is alleged that, deceased was mason by profession and earning Rs.25,000/- PM, the Tribunal considered his income at Rs.10,000/- per month and based upon such evidence, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,83,000/- under all the relevant heads together with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation from the respondents. 9. This is how now the appellants/claimants contend that, the compensation so awarded is inadequate and sought for enhancement of the compensation. Whereas insurer contends that, claimants are not entitled for the compensation, none of the assertion are proved by them. No such accident has taken place in the manner alleged in the petition. Insurance Company has filed an application in the shape of IA No.1/2020 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC seeking the leave of the Court to produce additional evidence and has produced document along with the list. No objections are filed to this IA No.1/2020 by the claimants. 10. The trial Court records are secured. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 11. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that, the income of the deceased so arrived by the Tribunal is on lower side. The learned Tribunal has not considered the profession of the deceased during his life time as a mason. He was earning substantial income from the said profession. He would further submit that, as the claimants being the aged parents of the deceased, are suffering lot because of death of their earning member in the family. They have lost love and affection towards their son, so also have spent substantial money towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. They be awarded reasonable compensation by enhancing the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 12. As against this submission, the learned counsel for the insurer submits that, the death of the deceased was not accidental death. It was a natural death. The Insurance Company has received the anonymous letter stating that, it was not a accidental death of the deceased. The insurer conducted further investigation and submitted an application to the hospital authority, seeking information - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 under the provision of Right to Information Act to know that whether the deceased has taken any treatment. Accordingly, hospital authority furnished information to the insurer stating that, no such treatment was taken by the deceased. Because of that, as information so furnished did not reflect about taking treatment by the deceased dying because of accidental injuries, then it is deemed that, it was a natural death. Therefore, the Insurance Company is constrained to file IA No.1/2020 seeking the leave of this Court to produce additional evidence to prove its defence. He further submits that the claimants have suppressed the said fact and because of the same, he prays to allow IA No.1/2020 and produce additional evidence and also allow the appeal of the Insurance Company and set aside the impugned judgment and award. He would also question about the quantum of compensation so awarded by the Tribunal by contending that, it is on higher side. 13. Having heard the arguments of both the side, and on perusal of the material placed on record, the questions that arises for our consideration are: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 i) “Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation as prayed in their appeal? ii) Whether the Insurance Company is absolved of payment of compensation to the claimants in view of production of additional evidence in this appeal?” 14. Our answer to the above points are in favour of the claimants and against the respondent No.2-Insurance Company for the following reasons:- So far as occurrence of the accident, on 21.02.2018, at 3.00 pm, on Khurdakodihalli towards Mallur side, because of rash and negligent riding of the motorbike bearing registration No.KA-27/EF-0800 owned by respondent No.1, the claimants relied upon the copy of the FIR, complaint, spot panchanama and sketch map, charge sheet, vehicle seizure panchanama, photograph and IMV report. These documents marked at Exs.P1 to P11 and P13 do establish that the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent riding of the offending motorbike by its rider. In the said accident, deceased Mustaksab died and to that effect, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 the claimants relied upon inquest panchanama marked as per Ex.P14 and PM report as per Ex.P3. At the time of marking these documents, no little finger was raised by the respondents. For the first time, the claimants rely upon the additional documents in this appeal by contending that, because of receipt of an anonymous letter stating that, deceased suffered natural death and not due to accident, the further investigation was conducted and it came to the knowledge of the insurer that the deceased has not taken any treatment in the hospital. Therefore, it was not accidental death. The author of the said documents is not examined. Moreso except the letter obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, no document is produced to show that the deceased died not because of the accidental injuries. In the absence of acceptable evidence, it is hard to believe that the deceased suffered natural death as contended by the insurer. The doctor of Government Hospital, Byadgi had issued a letter dated 23.12.2019 stating that the deceased Mustaksab was not admitted in the hospital for treatment. But this - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 document is a self serving document produced by the insurer at appellate stage. Though serious contention with regard to the accident is taken by the insurer, but it is negatived by the Tribunal. Therefore, now the insurer cannot establish by producing such unacceptable document to show that the death is not because of any accidental injuries. It is an afterthought defence set up by the insurer so as to shirk the responsibility of payment of compensation. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company being respondent No.2 before the Tribunal has not made out any acceptable ground to receive additional evidence as prayed in I.A. as no grounds have been fulfilled by the insurer to receive additional evidence at the appellate stage. More so, it is not the case of the insurer that before contesting the petition filed by the claimants and before filing the objection statement, no such investigation was made. It is usual practice followed by the insurer to conduct investigation to ascertain about genuineness of the accident, its liability etc before filing objection to the claiming petition. As Insurance Company had an opportunity to investigate and only after investigation - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 the objection statement was filed, now on the receipt of anonymous letter, it cannot, contend that, the claimants have suppressed the material facts. Such a defence of the insurer now at the appellate stage cannot be accepted. Therefore, no grounds have been made out by the insurer to receive any additional evidence as prayed in IA No.1/2020. Therefore, the IA No.1/2020 lacks merit of any consideration and it is liable to be rejected. 15. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the said accident had taken place because of rash and negligent riding of the offending motorbike by its rider. As on the date of the accident, the insurance policy was in force and valid. Though the insurer had taken up a contention that, the rider was not possessing the effective driving licence, Exs.R1 and R2 have been produced to show about the existence of the policy as well as DL extract of the rider. These documents prove the existence of the policy as well as holding of effective driving licence by the rider at the time of accident. Therefore, the grounds urged by the insurer that the rider of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 the motorbike was not possessing the effective driving licence pales into insignificance. Such defence cannot be accepted. 16. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m. Though the claimants contended that the deceased Mustaksab was earning Rs.25,000/-, no evidence is adduced to prove such income. In the absence of evidence, as the accident was occurred in the year 2018, by applying the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal services Authority, the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.11,750/- instead of Rs.10,000/- p.m. The Tribunal has committed error in arriving at such a monthly income of the deceased. It is not in dispute that as per the PM report deceased was aged 26 years at the time of accident. As per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd., V. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, as deceased was doing a private employment, 40% of the income is to be added towards his future prospects. Thus, - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 the monthly income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.11,750/-+Rs.4,700/- (i.e. 40% of Rs.11,750/-). It comes to Rs.16,450/-. As the deceased was a bachelor, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. If 50% is deducted from 16,450/-, it comes to Rs.8,225/-. This would be the total monthly income of the deceased. It is to be multiplied with “12” to calculate annually. As the deceased was aged 26 years at the time of accident, as per the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), the proper multiple applicable is ‘17’. Therefore, as the claimants have lost the earning member of the family who were depending on the income of the deceased, the loss of dependency would be Rs.8,225X12X17 which comes to Rs.16,77,900/- as against Rs.14,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. So far as other conventional heads are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 towards transportation of dead body, Rs.80,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. Award of such compensation by the Tribunal is not questioned by the insurer by leading acceptable evidence. The insurer relied upon the additional evidence by filing IA No.1/2020 such as copy of investigation report, copy of information furnished by R.T.O. haveri, copy of letters under RTI Act written to The Byadgi Government Hospital and information furnished by Byadgi Government Hospital to absolve from payment of compensation. The said contention of the Insurance Company is negatived by this Court holding that it is an after thought. Therefore, in the absence of acceptable evidence from the Insurance Company, it can be stated that the award passed by the Tribunal under other various conventional heads do not require any interference by this court. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,77,900/- as against Rs.14,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency. So far as other heads are concerned, we do not find any factual error in awarding such compensation. So far as conventional heads are concerned, - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 as per the case in Pranay Sethi (supra), there shall be 10% increase in the compensation under the conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses only. Therefore, claimants are entitled for compensation as under:- Sl. No. Heads Amount (Rs. (Awarded by Tribunal) Amount Rs. (Amount awarded by this court) 1. Loss of Dependency 14,28,000/- 16,77,900/- 2. Loss of estate (Rs.15,000+ 10% of Rs.15,000) 15,000/- 16,500/- 3. Loss of Love and affection 40,000/- 40,000/- 4. Towards funeral expenses (Rs.15,000+ 10% of Rs.15,000) 15,000/- 16,500/- 5. Towards Transportation of dead body. 5,000/- 5,000/- 6. Towards Loss of filial consortium (Rs.80,000+ 10% of Rs.80,000) 80,000/- 88,000/- Total 15,83,000/- 18,43,900/- 17. As it is held that the claimants are entitled for Rs.18,43,900/-, the liability of the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer is joint and several. As insurer has - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 not produced any documents to prove about the violation of the policy conditions, the liability of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is joint and several, however under law of indemnity, the Insurance Company has to indemnify the compensation amount by depositing the same before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability to deposit the compensation by the insurer. We do not find any factual or legal error in such a finding. Accordingly, the above said points are answered in favour of the claimants and against the insurer. Resultantly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.101803/2020 is allowed in part. ii. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.103658/2019 is dismissed. iii. I.A No.1/2020 is rejected. iv. The impugned judgment and award dated 02.07.2019 passed in MVC No.363/2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 Byadgi is hereby modified and the claimants are held entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,43,900/- as against Rs.15,83,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. v. The rest of the order of the Tribunal with respect to fixing the liability upon the Insurance Company and directing it to deposit the award amount, apportionment of the compensation, terms regarding release of the amount and the rate of interest shall remain unaltered and unmodified. vi. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the tribunal within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. vii. There shall be a modified award accordingly. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:146-DB MFA No. 101803 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 103658 of 2019 viii. The Registry is directed to transmit the amount so deposited by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal forthwith. ix. Transmit the trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal along with the copy of this judgment forthwith. x. Under the circumstance, we pass no orders as to costs. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE VMB/CT-AN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39