- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 157 OF 2025 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5355 OF 2025 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 157/2025 BETWEEN: THE REGIONAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.4/3-1 AND 3/2 M, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560061 REP BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD,BENGALURU-560001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI DENESH BASAVARAJU S/O BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. SMT S ARUNA KUMARI W/O DENESH BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. SMT. POOJA D D/O DENESH BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.3959/A, 2ND A CROSS, B BLOCK, NEAR KODANDARAMA TEMPLE, SUBRAMANYANAGARA, RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE NORTH, SRIRAM PURAM, BANGALORE, BANGALORE NORTH, KARNATAKA-560021 PRESENT R/AT NO.42, 1ST MAIN, 3RD B CROSS, VIDYANAGARA DOMBARAHALLI, LAKSHMIPURA POST, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-562162. 4. SREE AYYAPPA TOURIST PROP N U SRINIVAS, 1ST FLOOR, MUNIYAPPA COMPLEX, KIADB ROAD, JALAHALLI CROSS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 T DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560057. (R C OWNER OF THE MINI BUS BEARING NO.KA-04-AC-4352) EXPARTE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. TEJAS N.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 03.07.2025; NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.11.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.496/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-26), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.40,51,812/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 5355/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. DENESH BASAVARAJU S/O. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. SMT. ARUNA KUMARI. S W/O. DENESH BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 3. SMT. POOJA. D D/O. DENESH BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.3956/A, 2ND A CROSS B BLOCK, NEAR KODANDARAMA TEMPLE, SUBRAMANYANAGARA, RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU NORTH, SRIRAM PURAM, BENGALURU NORTH - 560021. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.42, 1ST MAIN, 3RD B CROSS, VIDYANAGARA DOMBARAHALLI, LAKSHMIPURA POST, BENGALURU NORTH - 562 162. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. TEJAS N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SREE AYYAPPA TOURIST PROP. N U SRINIVAS, 1ST FLOOR, MUNIYAPPA COMPLEX, KIADB ROAD, JALAHALLI CROSS, T DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 057. (R.C. OWNER OF THE MINI BUS BEARING REG NO.KA-04-AC-4352) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.4/3/-1 AND 3/2M, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 061. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.D. VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 23.07.2025; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPESNED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.11.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.496/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MACT, ACJM, BENGALURU, (SCCH-26), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) These appeals are as against the Judgment and Award dated 16.11.2024 in MVC No.496/2022 on the file of the XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ACJM [SCCH-26], Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal by this impugned judgment and award has allowed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act'] granting a total compensation of Rs.40,51,812/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum apportioning this compensation amongst the claimants - respondents in the ratio of 40:50:10. 2. The claimants, who are referred accordingly in this order, are the parents and an unmarried sister of the deceased, Ms. Deeksha D. The Tribunal has awarded the afore compensation under the following heads: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 The appellant in MFA No.157/2025 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle and is accordingly referred to. The claimants have filed their appeal in MFA No.5355/2025 seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The offending vehicle, ‘a minibus’ is referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’, and its driver is referred to as ‘the driver of the vehicle’. 3. It is undisputed that Ms. Deeksha D. was working as a software developer with M/s. EIT Services India Private Limited on completion of her graduation in Engineering. She was drawing a sum of Rs.37,000/- per month as salary as of the date of her Sl. No. Heads Amount 1 Loss of Dependency Rs.38,86,812/- 2 Loss of filial consortium to the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 [44,000x 3] Rs.1,32,000/- 3 Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- 4 Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/- Total Rs.40,51,812/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 demise. On 15.12.2021, she was returning to her residence in her two-wheeler with her sister [the third claimant] on the pillion. She was on the Bengaluru- Tumakuru Highway [NH-48] when she was involved in the accident. Ms. Deeksha D. has died because of the injuries suffered in the accident, and her younger sister has also suffered certain injuries. 4. The first information about the accident is filed with the jurisdictional police by the third claimant alleging that the driver of the offending vehicle, who was rash and negligent, hit the two- wheeler from behind when they were near Anchepalya closure to ‘NICE Road Cross’. The jurisdictional police, acting upon such first information, have registered the First Information Report [FIR] in Crime No.456/2021 for different offences including the offence punishable under Section 187 of the MV Act. The jurisdictional police have issued a notice to the owner of the offending - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 vehicle on 17.12.2021 referring to the allegation and calling upon the owner to furnish the requisite details and he has filed such details in the prescribed form mentioning that Mr. Nandeesh M. was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident 5. The claimants, to support the claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.90,00,000/-, have examined the first claimant - the father, and Sri Hitesh Kangtani, a HR Manager with the deceased's employer, as PW.2. The claimants have marked, amongst others, the deceased's pay slips for the months beginning from June 2021 and up to December 2021, her Bank Statement, her Letter of Employment and the details of the full and final settlement of accounts in January 2022 as Ex.P.28. The Insurer has filed Statement of Objections denying negligence by the driver of the offending vehicle and asserting that Ms. Deeksha D has died because she was not wearing a helmet, and the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 Insurer has examined the driver of the offending vehicle as RW.1, Sri. U. Manjunath, FDA from RTO office as RW.2 and its Legal Manage -Smt. Trishi Subbaiah-as RW.3. 6. The Tribunal, while considering the Issues on whether the claimants have proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent and whether the deceased Ms. Deeksha D has died because of the injuries suffered in the accident, has opined that the claimants have shown that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and that Ms. Deeksha D has died because of the injuries suffered in the accident. On the negligence, the Tribunal has relied upon the first information filed with the jurisdictional police and the other ensuing records concluding that the evidence on record does not show that there is any collusion between the police and the claimants or that the police have filed a defective charge sheet against the driver of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 offending vehicle. The question presented for consideration is about the Tribunal’s finding on the negligence of the driver of the offending bus [a minibus] and the quantum of compensation. On negligence. 7. Sri D. Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the Insurer, submits that this Court must interfere with the Tribunal's finding on the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle canvassing the following. [a] The driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle parallelly with an auto-rickshaw that was to the left of the offending vehicle, and Ms. Deeksha D tried to overtake in between these two vehicles. She dashed against the auto- rickshaw, fell on the road and suffered head injuries. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 [b] The driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent, and the offending vehicle did not touch the two-wheeler which Ms. Deeksha D. was riding with her sister as a pillion. The claimants, who rely upon the first information filed by the third claimant, has not examined the third claimant. [c] The IMV report [Ex.P.9] shows that the two- wheeler had no damage on its rear side which should have been if the third claimant is justified in her allegation that the driver of the offending vehicle dashed against the two- wheeler coming from behind. [d] The Postmortem Report [Ex.P.8] corroborates the Insurer's case that Ms. Deeksha D has suffered head injuries when she fell on the road after hitting her auto rickshaw and she has - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 suffered severe injuries because she was not wearing a helmet. [e] The third claimant though asserts that she has suffered some injuries, no other evidence is placed on record and if the driver of the offending vehicle was indeed rash and negligent and hit the two-wheeler from behind both rickshaw and the third claimant should have suffered severe injuries. 8. Sri Tejas N., the learned counsel for the claimants supports the Tribunal's finding asserting that the evidence on record is that Ms. Deeksha D has suffered head injuries despite wearing a helmet and that the driver of the offending vehicle would have stated so in his evidence if she was not really wearing a helmet. The learned counsel proposes to draw strength from the findings in the postmortem report and the recording of the nature of the injuries in the inquest report. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 9. It cannot be gainsaid that the claimants have not examined the third claimant who was on the pillion of Ms. Deeksha D at the time of the accident and in this Court's opinion this could have been fatal if other evidence on record was not conclusive. As such, the other evidence must be examined and before that this Court must record that the Insurer's case, based on the evidence of the driver of the offending vehicle, is that a third vehicle is involved in the accident but none of the police records refer to the involvement of this vehicle. 10. Ms. Deeksha D and the third claimant are taken to a hospital by certain third persons, and Ms. Deeksha D. is declared brought dead by the hospital. The third claimant is categorical in the first information that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent and touched the two-wheeler from behind. The police, as part of the investigation, have issued a notice under Section 133 of the MV Act - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 to the owner of the Insurer after registering the FIR for the other offences, including the offence punishable under Section 1871 of the MV Act. The records, including the records produced by the Insurer, do not show that any statement was given either by the owner of the insured vehicle or the driver about the involvement of the auto rickshaw in the accident. 11. The driver of the offending vehicle, as pointed out by Ms. Tejas N., for the first time in his evidence states about Ms. Deeksha D. was trying to come between his bus and auto-rickshaw on his left, and that when he got down from the bus to know the reason for the accident upon hearing the sound, motorcycle was struck to the rear wheel. The sketch drawn by the jurisdictional police [Ex.P.4] is inconclusive but the nature of the injuries are 1 This Section prescribes the punishment for failure to stop the vehicle, ensure that the injured receives treatment and furnish information to the police as contemplated under Sections 132, 133 and 134 of the MV Act. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 recorded in the inquest [Ex.P.7]. The postmortem Report shows that Ms. Deeksha D has suffered not only head injuries but also injuries in the abdomen and lower limb. Crucially, the IMV report [Ex.P.9] shows that the front left tyre of the offending vehicle had rub marks. 12. This Court must examine the merits of the Tribunal's finding in the light of this evidence and the observation first mentioned and the following circumstances stand out. The records do not show the involvement of a third vehicle. The first response of the owner of the offending vehicle does not refer to this. The front-left door has rub marks. The injuries suffered by Ms. Deeksha D. and the pillion rider [the third claimant] are more consistent with the injuries that could be if the accident is as narrated by the third claimant especially with the driver of the offending vehicle admitting that the vehicle was at the rear wheel when he stopped the vehicle. These indeed - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 are overwhelming materials, and this Court in the light of this evidence is not persuaded to opine that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent. On Quantum 13. Sri D. Vijaya kumar submits that his Court must intervene with the quantum of compensation awarded towards loss of dependency asserting that the compensation is paid by the employer as spoken to by PW.2 and the Tribunal has not deducted the amount paid as income /professional tax. The learned counsel relies upon the evidence that a sum of Rs.11,67,104/- and Rs.14,00,525/- are paid to the claimants and that these amounts were paid towards Term and Group Insurance covered under the relevant policy for which premium is paid by the employer. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 14. Sri D. Vijayakumar relies upon the recent decision of the Apex Court in Krishna & Ors Vs. Tek Chand & Ors2 to assert that [i] these amounts must be deducted from the compensation lest it be that the claimants receive advantage of those amounts as also the compensation, and [ii] there cannot be any dispute that the employer has paid the premium for the afore Insurance as could be because the terms are explicit in Ex- P25 [the offer letter]. 15. Mr. Tejas N submits that the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of Ms. Deeksha D in a sum of Rs.27,218/- taking the annual average income in a sum of Rs.1,90,527/- which is contrary to the pay slips [as per Exbs.P12 - P18 and P26]. However, the 2 Special Leave Petition (C) No.5044/2019 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 learned counsel does not dispute that there must be an appropriate deduction towards income tax payable and the provisional tax. When queried, both Mr. D. Vijayakumar and Mr. Tejas N submit that the relevant Assessment Year would be 2021- 22 and the tax slab for any amounts between Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- after standard deduction would be 5% of such amount. 16. The first aspect for consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in taking the income of Ms. Deeksha D at Rs.27,218/-. The answer must be in the light of the pay slips that are marked as Exhibits. These Payslips are for the period beginning from June 2021. If for the months of June and July, 2021 Ms. Deeksha D was paid basic in a sum of Rs.15,000 [Basic Pay], 7,499/- [HRA], Rs.2,808/- [Advance Bonus/Exgratia] and Rs.5,504/- [transportation allowance]. Ms. Deeksha’s total monthly earning was in a sum of Rs.30,811/-]. The - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 corresponding amounts for the months starting from August 2021 are Rs.15,867/-, Rs.7,933/-, Rs.2808/- and Rs.10,392/- [none of these amounts are reimbursements]. The total of these amounts is in Rs.37,000/-, and this amount must be taken for the purposes of the Net Annual Income as it is closest to the date of the accident [15.12.2021]. 17. It is trite that when the amounts are paid as allowances and not as reimbursements, there cannot be any deduction. The Tribunal therefore could not have taken monthly income less than Rs.37,000/-. The annual income at Rs.37,000/- will be in a sum of Rs.4,44,000/-. As it is undisputed that there must be deduction towards Income Tax and Professional Tax, the amount deductible under these heads in terms of the rate tax applicable will be Rs.7,080/-. The net annual income after deduction of tax will be in a sum of Rs.4,36,920/-. The computation of the Net Annual Income. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 Particulars Amount [in Rs.] A Annual Income 4,44,000/- B Standard Deduction 50,000/- C Deduction towards Professional Tax 2,400/- D Taxable Income A-(B+C) 3,91,600/- E Tax Slab [Upto Rs.2,50,000/- - Nil] [Rs.2,50,000/- to - Rs.5,00,000/- = 5%] [Rs.3,91,600 - Rs.2,50,00/- = 1,41,600/- 1,41,600/- x 5% = 7,080/- F Tax Deductible 7,080 G Net Annual Income [A-F] 4,36,920 18. The monthly income would therefore be in a sum of Rs.36,410/- and there must be an advantage of 40% towards future prospects with a deduction of 50% towards personal expenses as the deceased was unmarried, and that this amount must be quantified with '17' as the multiplier. The loss of dependency will be in a sum of Rs.51,99,348/-. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 Computation of Loss of Dependency [in Rs.] Monthly Income 36,410 Net Annual Income for Loss of Dependency [Rs.36,410 x 12] 4,36,920 Addition towards future Prospects at 40% 1,74,768 Annual Income with Future prospects 6,11,688 Deduction at 50% towards personal expenses 3,05,844 Annual Income after deduction towards personal expenses 3,05,844 Loss of dependency with multiplier of '17' 51,99,348 19. The next aspect is about deductions as claimed by the Insurer. Indeed, it cannot be disputed that the employer has paid the premium for the term under which the claimants have been paid Rs.11,67,104/- and Rs.14,00,525/-. The question that was considered by the Apex Court in Krishna's case [supra] is whether monetary benefits received by way of compassionate assistance from an employer owing to a sudden death in harness should be deducted, and it is based on Haryana Compassionate - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees, Rules, 2006. Though the PW2 [the Manager HR Shared Service at EIT Services India Private Limited] is examined about the amounts paid under the aforesaid Insurance Policies, there is not even a suggestion to witness that these have been received as compassionate assistance. If the amount is not paid as compassionate assistance, it would fall within the amount received on account of Insurance cover extended to an employer as part of employment benefits and that cannot be excluded in view of the Apex Court's decision in Krishna's case [supra]. 17. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to opine that there must be deductions as claimed. The claimants in addition to the loss of dependency as stated above would be entitled for conventional heads viz., loss of consortium and funeral/transportation expenses. These amounts would be in Rs.1,32,000/- [40,000 x 3 + 10%] and Rs.33,000 [30,000 + 10%] to - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 the claimants. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to a total enhancement of Rs.53,64,348/- which is brought out by this comparative table. Sl. No. Heads Amount By Tribunal Amount By this Court 1 Loss of Dependency Rs.38,86,812 51,99,348 2 Loss of filial consortium to the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 [44,000x 3] Rs.1,32,000 3 Loss of Estate Rs.16,500 1,32,000 4 Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500 33,000 Total Rs.40,51,812 53,64,348 Enhanced 13,12,536 18. In the light of the afore, the appeals stand disposed of by the following: ORDER a. The Tribunal's impugned judgment and award dated 16.11.2024 in M.V.C.No.496/2022 is modified holding that the claimants are entitled to a total - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 sum of Rs.53,64,348/- with enhancement in a sum of Rs.13,12,536/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. b. The statutory amount in deposit in the Insurer's appeal in MFA No.157/2025 shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement, and the Tribunal shall disburse the amount deposited by the Insurer subject to its orders on apportionment and deposit. c. The Insurer shall deposit further amounts as may be required within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. d. The Registry is directed to transmit the trial Court records at the earliest. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42784-DB MFA No. 157 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5355 of 2025 In view of disposal of the appeals, all the pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M. NADAF) JUDGE SA,RB