- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34360-DB MFA No. 7305 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 81 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7305 OF 2019 (MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.81 OF 2021 (MV-D) IN MFA No.7305/2019 BETWEEN: M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.5, 2ND FLOOR MONARCH CHAMBERS INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V.ARCADE BILAKAHALLI MAIN ROAD OFF BG ROAD, IIM POST BENGALURU-560 076. …APPELLANT (BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O. LATE RAJAPPA T.K. NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 2. KUM. LAKSHMI T.R. D/O. LATE RAJAPPA T.K. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34360-DB MFA No. 7305 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 81 of 2021 NOW AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS. 3. KUM. ARUNA T.R. D/O. LATE RAJAPPA T.K. NOW AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS. 4. KUM. ANUSHRI T.R. D/O. LATE RAJAPPA T.K. 5. SMT. YALLAMMA NOW AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA @ KAKI MUNIYAPPA. SINCE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN AND THEIR MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT THARABAHALLI VILLAGE DEVANAGONDHI POST, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 6. SRI SURESH T.R. S/O. RAJAPPA RESIDING AT THARABAHALLI VILLAGE DEVANAGONDHI POST HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4 (R-2 TO R-4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R-1); R-5-YALLAMMA AND R-6 SURESH T.R. ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED] * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15-4-2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.4323 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, XXVIII ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-13), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.25,32,160/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PER CENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34360-DB MFA No. 7305 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 81 of 2021 IN MFA.CROB NO.81/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O. LATE RAJAPPA T.K. NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 2. KUM. LAKSHMI T.R. D/O. LATE RAJAPPA T.K. NOW AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS. 3. KUM. ARUNA T.R. D/O. LATE RAJAPPA T.K. NOW AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS. 4. KUM. ANUSHRI T.R. D/O. LATE RAJAPPA T.K. AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS. CROSS OBJECTOR NOS.2 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY 1ST CROSS OBJECTOR HEREIN AS NATURAL GUARDIAN BEING MOTHER. ALL ARE RESIDING AT THARABAHALLI VILLAGE DEVANAGONDHI POST HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ...CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.5, 2ND FLOOR MONARCH CHAMBERS INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. SRI SURESH T.R. S/O. RAJAPPA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34360-DB MFA No. 7305 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 81 of 2021 MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT THARABAHALLI VILLAGE DEVANAGONDHI POST HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2-YALLAMMA IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) * * * THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15-4-2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.4323 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, M.A.C.T., BENGALURU (SCCH-13), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MFA AND MFA CROB. ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) MFA No.7305/2019 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 15.04.2019 passed in MVC No.4323/2016 by learned Addl. Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) (for short, 'Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.25,32,160/- to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34360-DB MFA No. 7305 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 81 of 2021 the claimants, whereas, MFA.Crob.No.81/2021 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the claimant's case before the Tribunal are as under:- On 03.03.2016, at about 8.00 p.m., one Rajappa T.K. (herein after referred to as 'deceased'), his brother Ramesh and Ganesh were making haystack at their land at Tharabahalli village. At this time, the tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA 53 T 986 and No.KA 53 T 987 brought a load of hay(dry grass) from other land to the land of the deceased and the driver of the said tractor-trailer in order to unload the said hay, lifted the trailer of the said tractor upwards and drove the said tractor-trailer in reverse direction at high speed and in a negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. The wheel of the said trailer went upon the said hay stack. As a result, the trailer got turtled and fell on the deceased and due to the impact, deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to MVJ hospital, Hosakote, wherein he was declared brought dead. In this regard, the claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34360-DB MFA No. 7305 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 81 of 2021 Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the minor children and claimant No.5 is the mother of deceased. 4. Learned counsel Sri Pradeep B, appearing for the Insurance company in MFA No.7305/2019 vehemently contended that the Tribunal has granted high and exorbitant compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal ought to have seen that as per the charge sheet filed by the police authority, the driver of the tractor-trailer has no license to drive the class of vehicles. Further, the accident occurred due to the use of trailer and as on the date of the accident, the insurance policy of the tractor was in force, however, the insurance policy was not in force in respect of trailer. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Infact, the entire liability has to be fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle. Further, the Tribunal ought to have seen that the claimants have not proved the income of the deceased with cogent evidence and hence in the absence of proper proof, the income considered by MACT at Rs.16,890/- p.m. is highly excessive and liable to be scaled down. Thus, learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Gopalkrishna N. appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal was not justified in not granting any amount towards 'future prospects' to the assessed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34360-DB MFA No. 7305 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 81 of 2021 income of the deceased for computing dependency. Further, the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under the conventional heads. Thus, he prayed to allow the cross objection appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the following points would arise for our consideration in the appeal:- 1. "Whether the appellant-Insurance company has proved that the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in view of non-possessing insurance policy to the trailer as on the date of the accident, as contended by the Insurance company? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or it requires any interference? 7. So far as liability aspect is concerned, it is the contention of Insurance company that on 03.03.2016, one Rajappa, Ramesh and Ganesh were making haystack at Tharabahalli village. When the tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA-53-T-986 and KA-53-T-987 brought the load of haystack(dry grass), from other land to the land of the deceased, at that time, the driver of said tractor-trailer in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34360-DB MFA No. 7305 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 81 of 2021 order to unload the said hay, lifted the trailer of the said tractor upwards and drove the said tractor-trailer in reverse direction in high speed and in negligent manner and thus dashed against the deceased, as a result of the same, deceased succumbed to the injuries. Now, learned counsel for the Insurance company contended that as on the date of the accident, the insurance policy in respect of tractor was in force and in respect of trailer, the same was not in force. Therefore, the accident occurred due to the involvement of the trailer and hence the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 8. In the present cases, the admitted fact is that the accident occurred while the tractor was driven in reverse direction, which was attached to the trailer and the trailer driven by the driver of tractor- trailer dashed to the deceased, which resulted in his death. 9. Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was attached to the tractor and it was the trailer that dashed to the deceased, which resulted in his death. From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened. Therefore, the accident was caused by the tractor, as it occurred during the course of being driven by the tractor, consequently the liability of the tractor and its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor which resulted - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34360-DB MFA No. 7305 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 81 of 2021 in the death of the deceased, through the involvement of trailer. This being the position, in the present cases, the principles emanating from the decisions where the courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Honnamma and Ors, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1027 clearly held that liability of the tractor/insurer extended to the accident caused by tractor resulting in the death of the deceased through the trailer. 11. In view of the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, we hold that the insurer of the tractor is held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, though it was caused through the trailer. 12. Insofar as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, learned counsel for the Insurance company vehemently contended that though the claimants have not proved the income of the deceased with cogent evidence, in the absence of proper proof of income, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.16,890/- p.m.. We have perused the oral evidence - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34360-DB MFA No. 7305 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 81 of 2021 led by the claimant No.1-PW-1 and PW-2 and documentary evidence at Exs-P1 to P18. We perused the wage slips of deceased vide Exs- P9, 15, 16 and 17 and muster role & wage register Ex-P18. It clearly demonstrates that the wage slip for the month of February 2016, which is marked at Ex-P9, goes to show that the monthly gross salary of deceased was Rs.11,064/-. However, at Ex-P16, the salary structure of deceased for the month of February 2016 is given as Rs.16,893/- without any basis. Further as per Ex-P17, the wage structure of deceased for the month of July 2018 is shown as Rs.23,968/-. Therefore, in one year, the salary of any employee will not jump to maximum extent and there appears to be discrepancy in the wages of the deceased. As per Ex-P9, the salary of deceased was Rs.11,064/- for the month of February 2016 and that could be correct salary slip to be assessed. Hence, we are not considering the contents of Exs-P15, 16 and 17. Thus, we re-assess the salary of the deceased at Rs.11,064/- p.m. 13. The Tribunal failed to award future prospects. As on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 35 years and the multiplier applicable as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 is '16' and there are five dependents. Hence, 1/4th should be deducted towards - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34360-DB MFA No. 7305 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 81 of 2021 personal expenses from the income of the deceased. Accordingly, the 'loss of dependency' is reassessed as under:- Rs.11,064/- +40% = Rs.15,489/- -3/4th =Rs.3,871/- Rs.15,489-Rs.3,871/- =Rs.11,617/- x 12x 16 = Rs.22,30,502/- 14. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others1, claimant No.1. being the wife, she is entitled to spousal consortium of Rs.40,000/-, claimant Nos.2 to 4 being minor children, they are entitled to parental consortium of Rs.1,20,000/-(Rs.40,000x 3) and claimant No.5 being the mother of deceased Rajappa, she is entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/-, which totally works out to Rs.2,00,000/- towards 'loss of consortium'. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate'. Thus, totally, the claimants-appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.24,60,502/- as per the table below: 1 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34360-DB MFA No. 7305 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 81 of 2021 Sl.No. Head Amount of Compensation in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 22,30,502-00 2. Loss of Estate 15,000-00 3. Loss of Consortium 2,00,000-00 4. Towards Funeral Expenses 15,000-00 24,60,502.00 Less-Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 25,32,160.00 TOTAL -71,658.00 Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER i) MFA No.7305/2019 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed-in-part. ii) MFA.Crob.No.81/2021 filed by the claimants is dismissed. iii) The judgment and award dated 15.04.2019 passed in MVC No.4323/2016 by learned Addl. Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) is modified to the extent stated herein above. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34360-DB MFA No. 7305 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 81 of 2021 iv) The respondents/claimants are entitled for a reduced compensation of Rs.24,60,502/- from Rs.25,32,160/- thus, a sum of Rs.71,658/- is reduced from total compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization. v) In so far as, apportionment, deposit and release, the judgment and award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. vi) Amount in deposit be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith. vii) Draw modified award accordingly. viii) Registry is directed to send back the Tribunal records along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN CT: VR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34