Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 75545 (KAR)

SMT. SHARIFF AYESHA NOORULLA v. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA

MFA/4444/2016 · 2025-07-25

B M Shyam Prasad, G Basavaraja

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4444 OF 2016 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2994 OF 2016 (MV-D), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2995 OF 2016 (MV-I), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2996 OF 2016 (MV-I), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2997 OF 2016 (MV-I), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2998 OF 2016 (MV-D), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2999 OF 2016 (MV-D), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4443 OF 2016 (MV-D), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4445 OF 2016 (MV-I), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4446 OF 2016 (MV-I), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4447 OF 2016 (MV-I), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5136 OF 2016 (MV-DM) IN MFA NO.4444 OF 2016 BETWEEN 1. SMT. SHARIFF AYESHA NORULLA @ AYESHA, W/O LATE ASIF JAVEED, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 2. BABY SAADIYA FATHIMA D/O LATE ASIF JAVEED, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, - 2 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others 3. SRI. M.R.JAVEED IQBAL S/O LATE SYED ATHAULLA, SINCE DEAD APPELLANT NO.1 AND 2 ARE LR's OF APPELLANT NO.3 THE APPELLANT NO.2 SINCE MINOR BEING REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER CUM NATURAL GUARDIAN THE ALPPELLANT NO.1 SMT. SHARIFF AYEESHA NOORULLA, ALL ARE R/AT NO.28, 9TH A MAIN, B.T.M. 1 STAGE, BANGALORE-560029. ...APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.) [CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DTD:21.10.2021.] AND 1. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA S/O THIMME GOWDA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, YELACHENA HALLI, K.R.PURAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560062 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, 1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILLSON GARDEN, BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., BANGALORE-560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2, V/O DTD: 21.09.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT.) - 3 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6894/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO.2994 OF 2016 BETWEEN ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, I CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., BANGALORE-560027. BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600002 BY IT'S MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV.) AND 1. SMT SHARIFF AYESHA NOORULLA @ AYESHA, W/O LATE ASIF JAVEED, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, - 4 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others 2. SAADIYA FATHIMA D/O LATE ASIF JAVEED, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, 3. M.R. JAVEED IQBAL S/O LATE SYED ATHAULLA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2ND RESPONDENT IS MINOR BY HER M/G SMT. SHARIFF AYESHA NOORULLA. ALL ARE R/OF NO.28, 9TH 'A' MAIN, B.T.M. I STAGE, BANGALORE-560 029. 4. HOMBE GOWDA S/O THIMME GOWDA, 24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, YELACHENAHALLI, K.R.PURAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2, V/O DT.03.07.2025 R1 AND R2 ARE TREATED AS LR's OF DECEASED R3, (R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1), NOTICE TO R4 - D/W V/O. DATED: 27.01.2020.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6894/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.85,63,200/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. - 5 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others IN MFA NO.2995 OF 2016 BETWEEN ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, I CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., BANGALORE-560027. BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600002 BY IT'S MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADV.) AND 1. MS SADIYA FATHIMA D/O LATE ASIF JAVEED AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS SINCE MINOR BY M/G SMT AYEESHA SHAREEF W/O ASIF JAVEED AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A NO.28, 9TH A MAIN BTM I STAGE, BANGALORE-560029. 2. HOMBE GOWDA S/O THIMME GOWDA 24, HARSHA LAYOUT 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, YELACHENAHALLI, - 6 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others K R PURAM ROAD, BANGALORE-5600062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV. FOR R1, (R1 IS MINOR REP. BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER), NOTICE TO R2 - D/W V/O DATED: 05.03.2020.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6897/10 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.60,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO.2996 OF 2016 BETWEEN ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, I CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., BANGALORE-560027. BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600002 BY IT'S MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV.) - 7 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others AND 1. M. ATIF JAVEED, S/O M R JAVEED IQBAL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A NO.28, 9TH A MAIN BTM I STAGE, BANGALORE-560029. 2. HOMBE GOWDA S/O THIMME GOWDA 24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, YELACHENAHALLI, K R PURAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV. FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 - D/W V/O DATED: 23.03.2021.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6898/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM MEMBER MACT AT BANGALORE, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS 4,00,894 WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. IN MFA NO.2997 OF 2016 BETWEEN ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, I CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., BANGALORE-560027. - 8 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600002 BY IT'S MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV.) AND 1. SMT SHARIFF AYESHA NOORULLA W/O DECEASED ASIF JAVEED AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/A NO.28, 9TH A MAIN B.T.M. I STAGE, BANGALORE-560029. 2. HOMBE GOWDA S/O THIMME GOWDA 24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, YELACHENAHALLI, K R PURAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV. FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 - D/W V/O DATED: 10.03.2020.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.8547/10 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,97,570/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. - 9 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others IN MFA NO.2998 OF 2016 BETWEEN ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, I CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., BANGALORE-560027. BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600002 BY IT'S MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV.) AND 1. M R JAVEED IQBAL S/O LATE SYED ATHAULLA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. SRI ARIF JAVEED S/O M R JAVEED IQBAL AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 3. SHRI ATIF JAVEED S/O M R JAVEED IQBAL AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ALL ARE R/OF NO.28, 9TH A MAIN, B.T.M. I STAGE, BANGALORE-560029. - 10 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others 4. HOMBE GOWDA S/O THIMME GOWDA 24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, YELACHENAHALLI, K R PURAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3, NOTICE TO R4 - D/W V/O DATED: 06.03.2019, V/O DTD: 03.07.2025 R2 & R3 ARE TREATED AS LRs OF DECEASED R1.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.8548/10 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,67,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO.2999 OF 2016 BETWEEN ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, I CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., BANGALORE-560027. BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600002 BY IT'S MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV.) - 11 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others AND 1. SHRI ABID ALI KHAN S/O ATHAULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. SMT. RAISA SULTHANA D/O ATHAULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 3. SMT. ASFIYA ARA D/O ATHAULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 4. SHRI. ZAHID ALIKHAN S/O ATHAULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 5. SHRI. ATHAULLA KHAN S/O DHAWOOD KHAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ALL ARE PERMANETN R/O NO.20, I MAIN ROAD, I CROSS, KAUSAR NAGAR, R.T.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560032. 6. HOMBE GOWDA S/O THIMME GOWDA 24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, YELACHENAHALLI, K.R.PURAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 TO R5, NOTICE TO R6 - D/W V/O DATED: 03.03.2021.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6206/10 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, - 12 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,47,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO.4443 OF 2016 BETWEEN 1. SRI. M.R. JAVEED IQBAL S/O. LATE. SYED ATHAULLA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. ARIF JAVEED S/O. M.R. JAVEED IQBAL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 3. SRI. ATIF JAVEED S/O. M.R. JAVEED IQBAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO. 28, 9TH A MAIN, B.T.M. 1 STAGE, BANGALORE - 560029. ...APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.) AND 1. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA S/O. THIMME GOWDA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO. 24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, YELACHENA HALLI, K.R. PURAM ROAD, BANGALORE 560062 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, - 13 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, 1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., BANGALORE-560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 D/W.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.8548/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO.4445 OF 2016 BETWEEN SRI. M. ATIF JAVEED, S/O M R JAVEED IQBAL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO 28, 9TH 'A' MAIN, B.T.M. 1 STAGE, BANGALORE - 560029 ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.) AND 1. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA S/O THIMME GOWDA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO 24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, YELACHENA HALLI, K R PURAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560062. - 14 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, 1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., BANGALORE - 560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 - H/S V/O DATED: 21.09.2021.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6898/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO.4446 OF 2016 BETWEEN SMT. SHARIFF AYESHA NORULLA @ AYESHA W/O LATE ASIF JAVEED, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, 9TH 'A' MAIN, B.T.M 1 STAGE, BANGALORE-560029 ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.) AND 1. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA S/O THIMME GOWDA - 15 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, YELACHENA HALLI, K.R.PURAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560062. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, 1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILLSON GARDEN, BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., BANGALORE-560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 - H/S V/O DATED: 21.09.2021.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.8547/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO.4447 OF 2016 BETWEEN BABY. SAADIYA FATHIMA D/O LATE ASIF JAVEED, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, SINCE MINOR BEING REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER CUM NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. AYEESHA SHARIFF NOORULLA, W/O ASIF JAVEED, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, - 16 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others R/AT NO.28, 9TH A MAIN, B.T.M. 1 STAGE, BANGALORE-560029. ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.) AND 1. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA S/O THIMME GOWDA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, YELACHENA HALLI, K.R.PURAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560062. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, 1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILLSON GARDEN, BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., BANGALORE-560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 - D/W V/O. DTD. 03.07.2025.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6897/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 17 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others IN MFA NO.5136 OF 2016 BETWEEN 1. SRI. ABID ALI KHAN S/O ATHAULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 2. RAISA SULTHANA D/O ATHAULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 3. SMT ASFIYA ARA D/O ATHAULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 4. SRI ZAHID ALIKHAN D/O ATHAULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 5. SRI ATHAULLA KHAN S/O DHAWOOD KHAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.28, 9TH 'A' MAIN, B.T.M. 1 STAGE, BANGALORE-560029. ...APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.) AND 1. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA, S/O.THIMME GOWDA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, YELACHENA HALLI, - 18 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others K.R.PURAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560062. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, 1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILLSON GARDEN, BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., BANGALORE-560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 - D/W V/O DATED: 03.07.2025.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6206/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 19 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) All these appeals arise out of common Judgment and award dated 31st December, 2015 passed in MVCs No. 6894, 6897, 6898, 8547, 8548 and 6206 of 2010 by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5), Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited has challenged the judgment and award on the question of liability and also on compensation in Miscellaneous First Appeals No.2994, 2995, 2996, 2997, 2998 and 2999 of 2016. Claimants have preferred Miscellaneous First Appeals No.4444, 4447, 4445, 4446, 4443 and 5136 of 2016 challenging the fastening of contributory negligence in an extent of 25% on the driver of the car, as also seeking enhancement in the compensation. 3. Facts leading to these appeals are that the claimants/petitioners have filed the above mentioned claim petitions seeking compensation for sustaining injuries in the road traffic accident and also for the death of Asif Javed, Nayeemunnisa and Naseemunnisa. It is alleged in the claim - 20 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others petition that on 25th May 2010, Atif Javed was proceeding in the car bearing registration No.KA-03/MD-1223 along with family members to attend function at Tayalur, Mulbagal. It is stated that the when car was moving on the extreme left side of the road near V.Guttahalli of Mulbagal, at that time, the goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05/D-8428 coming from the opposite direction, struck the car head on. Due to the impact, the inmates of the car viz. Asif Javed, Nayeemunnissa and Naseemunnissa, succumbed to the accidental injuries. Smt. Shariff Ayesha Noorullah, her daughter Saadiya Fatima, and driver-Atif Javed suffered grievous injuries. Contending that the accident occurred due to the faulty driving of the goods vehicle by its driver, petitioners preferred claim petition seeking compensation. 4. In MVC No. 6894 of 2010, the petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the daughter and petitioner No.3 is the father of deceased-Asif Javed. It is contended by the petitioners that the deceased was a Software Engineer and earning Rs.2,50,000/- per month and the death of Asif Javed had put the members of the family to mental shock and to financial loss. It is also pleaded in the claim petition that - 21 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others deceased-Asif Javed was also a Director in a Company, earning Rs.3.00-4.00 lakh per month. 5. In MVC No.6897 of 2010, the guardian of the minor petitioner, pleads that the petitioner aged three years was travelling in the car and because of the accident, the child suffered severe head injuries. Immediately, the child was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar and then shifted to Mallya Hospital, Bengaluru where the child was treated as an inpatient from 26th May, 2010 till 02nd June, 2010. 6. The claim of the petitioner in MVC No.6898 of 2010 is that, on the fateful day of accident, he was an inmate of the car which was on its way to Tayalur of Mulbagilu Taluk to attend a family function. It is pleaded that the petitioner was driving the car. He was hale and healthy prior to accident and was working as Software Engineer in M/s. Oracle India and earning Rs.47,000/- per month plus allowances. It is further stated that he had got an offer from Accenture Services Private Limited with annual salary package of Rs.6,12,392/- to Rs.7,22,623/- with bonus. He pleads that he was supposed to join the company in May 2010. It is contended that due to the - 22 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others accidental injuries suffered, he lost the job which he was supposed to join. 7. The claim of the petitioner in MVC No.8547 of 2010 is that she was an inmate of the car and due to the accident, she suffered grievous injuries to her hand and leg. Immediately, she was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. It is further contented that she was a Software Engineer and was earning well. As she gave birth to the child, she was not going to work and now due to the injury suffered, she is unable to work in future and as such sought for compensation. 8. In MVC No.8548 of 2010, the petitioners have contended that the deceased was the wife of the petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioners 2 and 3 therein. It is pleaded that because of the accident, victim-Nayeemunnisa suffered fatal injuries and died on the way while she was being shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital. For the loss of wife and the mother of two children, the claimants have preferred claim petition seeking compensation. 9. Petitioners in MVC No.6206 of 2010 have pleaded that the fifth petitioner therein is the husband of the victim and other petitioners are children of the deceased. It is pleaded - 23 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others that the victim-Naseemunnissa suffered fatal injuries in the accident and died on the way while shifting from R.L. Jalappa Hospital to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment. 10. In response to service of notice, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed written statement. The substance of the written statement of respondent No.1 is that on 25th May 2010, his vehicle met with an accident near Mulbagal Taluk of Kolar District. He denies the petition averments and submits that the driver of the goods vehicle had valid driving license and the vehicle was covered under insurance policy and accordingly, sought to fasten the liability on the Insurance company. 11. Respondent No.2-Insurance company in its objection statement contended that as per the spot sketch, there is no deviation at the spot. The driver of the car had taken it from the left side of the road and crossing the median, was driving against the oncoming traffic. Therefore, there is 100% negligence on the part of the driver of the car and though driver of the goods vehicle was conscious and was driving the vehicle properly, the accident occurred due to fault of the driver of the car and hence the said respondent is not liable to pay - 24 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others compensation. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petitions. 12. Based on the pleadings, four common issues were framed in MVCs No.6894, 8548 and 6206 of 2010 and three common issues were framed in MVCs No.6897, 6898 and 8547 of 2010. To prove the case of the petitioners, in all, nine witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 9 and 47 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P47. (Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked separately in MVC No.6206 of 2010 before clubbing with other petitions). On closure of petitioners’ side evidence, respondents have examined three witnesses as RWs1 to 3 and marked four documents as Exhibits R1 to R4. 13. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Tribunal has allowed the petitions in part and awarded compensation. The details of compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest in the claim petitions are as under: Sl.No. MVC Number Amount (after deducting 25% out of total compensation awarded) Interest 1. 6894 of 2010 85,63,200.00 6% 2. 6897 of 2010 60,000.00 8% 3. 6898 of 2010 4,00,894.00 8% 4. 8547 of 2010 1,97,570.00 8% - 25 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others 5. 8548 of 2010 8,67,000.00 6% 6. 6206 of 2010 9,47,000.00 6% 14. The Tribunal has further held that the Driver of the car has contributed to the accident and accordingly saddled the contributory negligence on the driver of the goods vehicle as well as on the driver of the car in the ratio of 75:25 respectively and ordered that respondent No.1 is liable to pay 75% which shall be indemnified by respondent No.2-Insurance company. Being aggrieved by this Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, both Insurance company and the claimants have preferred appeals. Insurance Company has preferred the appeals questioning the liability as also the quantum and the petitioners have preferred appeals seeking enhancement and also questioning 25% contributory negligence saddled on the driver of the car. 15. We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. Sri O. Mahesh learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance company would submit that the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and material on record. He would submit that the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence as to entry of the car from - 26 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others the prohibited direction is proper, but insofar as holding that the driver of the goods vehicle has contributed to an extent of 75% to the cause of alleged accident is not just and proper, having made an observation in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Judgment as to the position of both vehicles with reference to the evidence of both the drivers, spot mahazar and sketch. He submitted that the Tribunal, in the circumstance, having held and also found that entry of the car was improper and so also its direction on 4-Lane Highway and also considering respective damages to the left side of both the vehicles was not justified in holding that the driver of the car contributed to the cause of accident in question to an extent of 25% and the driver of the goods vehicle to an extent of 75%. The same is highly prejudicial, erroneous and illegal. In the circumstance, the Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the car was negligent to an extent of 100% as the car entered the dedicated lane from prohibited direction illegally and in contravention of Road regulations and it was unbecoming of a prudent and responsible driver of a vehicle plying in public place/road. The learned Counsel would further submit that the size or weight of the vehicle does not determine the degree of negligence of its driver, other than reasonable care not taken by prudent and - 27 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others responsible driver in a given situation. Further, he would submit that the Tribunal has erred in granting huge compensation in all the cases, which is not just proper and on all these grounds, sought for allowing the appeals by setting aside the impugned Judgment and award. 16. As against this, the learned Counsels appearing for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal has committed serious error in considering the police records, First Information Report, spot sketch, panchanama, Motor Vehicle report, which clearly indicate that the driver of the goods vehicle was at fault and also criminal case was registered against him, and after trial, he was prosecuted by the Criminal Court as per Exhibit P44. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material evidence on record in its proper perspective. He would further submit that the Tribunal committed a serious error without evaluating the evidence of PWs1 and 2, though they were the eye-witnesses to the accident. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PWs1 and 2 with regard to negligence on the part of the driver of the car. Further, the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the evidence of PW8- Afsad Pasha who was present at the spot and witnessed the - 28 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others spot panchanama and has also shifted the dead bodies to the ambulance; he has clearly deposed that, due to the road repair work, all the vehicles were moving in the lane leading towards Kolar and also regarding the condition of the road at the time of accident, and diversion of traffic. His evidence is corroborated by Exhibits P46 and P47. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the appellants had established that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the driver of the goods vehicle was solely responsible for the occurrence of the accident. It is further submitted that Exhibits P46 and P47-letters issued by National Highway Authority of India and M/s. LANCO Private Ltd., clearly indicate that from the year 2009-2011, due to formation of 6-Lane National Highway, one lane was blocked and all vehicles were compulsorily given a direction to reach Kolar from the right side road. The Tribunal brushed aside these authenticated documents which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the spot-sketch, Motor Vehicle Inspection report and other documents. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation as to the general damages and special damages, and on all these grounds, - 29 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others sought for modifying the impugned Judgment and award fastening the entire liability on the driver of goods vehicle, so also sought for enhancement in the compensation. 17. Having heard the learned Counsels on both sides, and on perusal of records, the following points would arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the goods vehicle in the ratio of 25:75 respectively? 2. Whether the claimants in Miscellaneous First Appeals No.4444, 4447, 4445, 4456, 4443 and 5136 of 2016 are entitled for enhancement of compensation? Regarding Point No.1: 18. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the both the Counsels and also examined the materials placed before us. A perusal of material makes it clear that on the basis of complaint filed by Smt. Ayesha Noorullah, Mulbagilu Police have registered the case against the driver of EICHER Tanker (goods vehicle) for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of - 30 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others Indian Penal Code and submitted First Information Report to the Court. Thereafter, police went to the spot on the same day and conducted spot panchanama in the presence of panchas and also conducted inquest panchanama of Asif Javed, Nayemunnisa and Naseemunnissa, obtained Motor Vehicle Inspection report, postmortem report, wound certificates of the injured, recorded statement of witnesses and after thorough investigation, the Investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against Raghu- driver of the goods vehicle for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. 19. Along with the documentary evidence, petitioners have adduced the evidence of Smt. Shariff Ayesha Noorullah, PW2-Atif Javed and PW3-Javed Iqbal. Doctors who have treated the injured have also been examined as PWs4 to 6 and one Nehal Khadeer, HR Manager of Target Corporation of India Pvt. Ltd., was examined as PW7 and Afsad Pasha was examined as PW8. 20. The Insurance company has set up its defence that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the car. To substantiate this, one Sandeep of Royal - 31 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Company is examined as RW1 and one Raj Kiran is examined as RW2 and the driver of goods vehicle K Raghu, is examined as RW3. The Tribunal has considered the evidence adduced by both the parties and observed that as per the spot sketch, there is a space of six feet from the spot to the median. The impact happened as the car went straight towards the truck and both the vehicles colluded head-on and have changed their direction, i.e. one towards the right and other towards the left. Injuries suffered by the inmates and death of victims disclose that the car driver has taken the car to the left side of the truck due to which left portion of both vehicles have struck head-on. As per motor vehicle inspection report, the damages to both the vehicles discloses that the front and left portion of the car as well as the goods vehicle is extensively damaged. All these facts disclose that the driver of the car ventured into right side of the road and further tried to take the car towards extreme right and it is evident that in this process the accident occurred. Considering this fact, the Tribunal has held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car to an extent of 25% and accordingly fastened the negligence on both the - 32 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others drivers of car and goods vehicle in the ratio of 25:75 respectively. 21. As against this, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-claimants would vehemently submit that the Tribunal has not considered that due to road repair work all the vehicles were moving in the lane leading towards Kolar and the condition of the road at the time of the accident, as also regarding the diversion of traffic, which is corroborated by Exhibits P46 and P47 which are the letters issued by National Highway Authority of India and M/s. LANCO Pvt Ltd. with regard to road repair work, but there is no reference as to the road repair work. Petitioners have not disputed the spot sketch, which is marked as Exhibit P2. The prosecution papers, including the other papers, do not disclose as to the road repair work and blocking of road as stated by the petitioners. Therefore, only on the basis of Exhibits P46 and P47, it is not safe to come to the conclusion that road was blocked, as contended by the petitioners. 22. On re-examination, re-evaluation and reconsideration of entire material placed before us, we do not find any error or infirmity in the finding given by the Tribunal that there is - 33 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others contributory negligence to an extent of 25% on the part of driver of the car. Though charge-sheet is filed only against the driver of the goods vehicle, the Tribunal has independently assessed the material evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and fixed the contributory negligence to an extent of 25% on the driver of the car and 75% on the driver of the goods vehicle. Accordingly, the Tribunal is justified in giving the said finding. However, this contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car would not affect the rights of the claimants who are the inmates of the car. As regards the principle of composite negligence, we rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KHENYEI v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in 2015(9) SCC 279 wherein it is observed that the claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort-feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort-feasors is joint and several. The Insurance Company is at liberty to institute proceedings against the other tort-feaser to recover the 25% of the compensation amount. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. - 34 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others Regarding point No.2: 23. As regards compensation in MFA No.4444 of 2016 arising out of MVC No.6894 of 2010, PW1 has reiterated the averments made in the claim petition and produced Exhibits P8 and P9 passports of the first and second petitioners, Exhibit P3- inquest mahazar and Exhibit P4-postmortem report. It is pleaded that the deceased was a Software Engineer and earning Rs.1,01,000/- per month with allowances and due to the untimely death of the victim, petitioners have lost the bread- earner in the family. PW1 has produced Exhibit P41- employment letter issued by Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. and Exhibit P42-salary certificate and exhibit P43-salary slip for the month of May 2010 and Exhibit P44-the account extract. Petitioner has also examined PW7-Nehal Khadeer, Executive of the Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd who has deposed as per Exhibit P43-salary slip. In his cross-examination, he admits that salary would be dispersed through account only and the salary includes perks allowances which would vary every month. The Tribunal has considered the salary of the deceased only at Rs.86,700/- per month, which is not correct. As per the records, the deceased was a Software Engineer and was - 35 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others earning Rs.1,01,000/- per month plus allowances. Petitioners have also produced Exhibit P43-salary slip for the month of May 2010 issued by M/s. Target Corporation of India which reveals that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.1,04,849/-. Out of the gross salary, Rs.200/- and Rs.7840/- is to be deducted towards profession tax and towards income tax respectively. Then the monthly gross income would be Rs.96,809/-. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% is to be added to the income towards future prospects. If that is added the income would be Rs.1,35,533/- per month. As there are three dependents, one-third is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The inquest and post-mortem report reveals that the deceased was aged 30 years as on the date of accident. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier would be 16. Hence, the loss of dependency would be. Rs.1,73,48,160/-. Further, as per the decision of PRANAY SETHI (supra), petitioners are also entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, and - 36 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and towards funeral expenses. Resultantly, petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,74,98,160/-. 24. As regards compensation in MFA No.4447 of 2016 pertaining to MVC No.6897 of 2010 is concerned, that petitioner is a minor aged about three years. PW1 has reiterated the averments made in the claim petition and also produced wound certificate Exhibit P15, Discharge summary and also the medical bills as per Exhibits P16 and P18, respectively. Petitioner has suffered displacement of right clavicle fracture, which is grievous in nature. The Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs.80,000./- The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges and also towards loss of amenities. Considering the nature of injuries, we are of the view that it would suffice, if the global compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 25. With regard to compensation in MFA No.4445 of 2016 arising out of MVC No.6898 of 2010 is concerned, it is the case of the petitioners that he has suffered grievous injuries in the accident, and he got himself examined as PW2 and produced - 37 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others wound certificate Exhibit P19 and discharge summary Exhibit P20 issued by Mallya and Fortis Hospitals. He has also produced medical bills for Rs.3,84,525/-. The petitioner has undergone surgery even for removal of implants. Petitioner has also examined PW4-Dr. Sayeed Saleemuddin who has opined about disability suffered by the petitioner. PW5-Dr. Surendranath Shetty, has deposed that the injured has suffered disability in an extent of 15% to the whole body. The material on record discloses that the petitioner has suffered about six injuries and among them two injuries or grievous in nature, i.e. fracture to the ribs and left shaft humerus. During the course of cross-examination, PW2 has deposed that he has been employed as Software Engineer. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and also awarded a sum of Rs.3,84,525/- towards medical expenses considering the medical bills produced by the petitioner and Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of earning during laid-up period and any amount towards food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that it would suffice if global compensation of Rs.30,000/- is awarded in addition to what has been awarded - 38 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others by the Tribunal. Since the contributory negligence is fastened on the driver of the car who is the petitioner herein, out of the compensation amount, 25% is to be deducted. Then the global compensation to which the petitioner is entitled in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, would be Rs.22,500/-. 26. In MFA 4446 of 2016 arising out MVC No.8547 of 2010, the petitioner has pleaded that she suffered fracture of both bones of right arm, inferior ramus left side. Immediately, after the accident, she was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, where she took treatment as an inpatient and further she took treatment at Mallya Hospital, Bengaluru. Exhibit P10-wound certificate reveals that she has suffered three injuries and among that injuries 1 and 3 are grievous in nature. X-ray reveals that right forearm communited fracture of both bones middle one-third and inferior pubic rami fracture of left pelvis. Exhibit P11 is the discharge summary and photographs, which disclose that there is a scalp on her hand. The petitioner examined PW6-Dr. P.V. Manohar, who has deposed about the injuries suffered by the petitioner and about the implants in situ and the Doctor has opined that the petitioner has suffered 12% disability to the whole body. It is admitted that there is no - 39 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others reference made from Mallya Hospital about the nature of surgery. The Tribunal has opined that the petitioner is able to work and she is not disabled due to the injuries sustained the accident and also there is no loss of employment. Considering the evidence placed by the petitioner, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. Further, considering Exhibit P13-medical bills produced by the petitioner, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.93,426/- and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards Food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges. Considering the nature of injury sustained, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for a global compensation of Rs.25,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. 27. As regards compensation, in MFA No.4443 of 2016 arising out of MVC No.8548 of 2010, the petitioners filed claim petition as to the death of Nayeemunissa. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the deceased and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. Petitioner No.1-Javed Iqbal, got examined himself as PW3 and produced documents Inquest- - 40 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others Exhibit P24, and post-mortem report Exhibit P26. The deceased was a housewife. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is just and proper. But the Tribunal has not added future prospects to the income. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 25% is to be added to the income towards future prospects. If that is added, the monthly income would be Rs.7,500/- and out of that one-third is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Then, the income would be Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 50 years on the basis of post-mortem report Exhibit P25 and adopted appropriate multiplier 13. Accordingly, the loss of dependency would be Rs.7,80,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 13). As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and towards funeral expenses. Accordingly, the revised compensation would be Rs.9,30,000/-. - 41 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others 28. With respect to compensation pertaining to MFA No.5136 of 2016 arising out of MVC No.6206 of 2010, the petitioners have filed claim petition for the death of Naseemunissa. The son of the deceased-Zahid Ali Khan is examined as PW9. He has reiterated as to the averments made in the claim petition and produced Exhibit P4-inquest mahazar and Exhibit P5-post-mortem report. It is submitted that the deceased was a Tailor by profession and was earning Rs.8000- 9000 per month. In this regard, the petitioners have not placed any supporting material or documentary evidence. The Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, relying on the decision of RAMACHANDRAPPA v. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd. reported in AIR 2011 SC 2951. But the Tribunal has not added future prospects. As the deceased was 48 years, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 25% is to be added to the income towards future prospects. If that is added, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.7,500/- and as there are five dependents, one-fourth is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Then, the income would be - 42 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others Rs.5,625/- per month. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 48 years on the basis of post-mortem report Exhibit P25 and adopted appropriate multiplier 13. Accordingly, the loss of dependency would be Rs.8,77,500/- (Rs.5,625/- x 12 x 13). As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) towards loss of consortium; and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and towards funeral expenses. Accordingly, the revised compensation would be Rs.11,07,500/-. 29. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Miscellaneous First Appeals No.2994, 2995, 2996, 2997, 2998 and 2999 of 2016 preferred by the Insurance Company, are dismissed; ii) Miscellaneous First Appeals No. 4444, 4447, 4445, 4446, 4443 and 5136 of 2016 preferred by the appellants are allowed in part, modifying that the appellant-claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation as under: - 43 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others Sl.No. MFA Number Total Compensation (Rs.) 1. 4444 of 2016 1,74,98,160.00 2. 4447 of 2016 1,00,000.00 3. 4445 of 2016 4,23,394.00 4. 4446 of 2016 2,88,426.00 5. 4443 of 2016 9,30,000.00 6. 5136 of 2016 11,07,500.00 iii) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition, till deposit; iv) Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment; v) Apportionment and disbursement, shall be mutatis-mutandis the award of the Tribunal; vi) Respondent Insurance Company is at liberty to institute proceedings on the other tort-feaser, i.e. driver/owner/insurer of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-03/MD-1223, to recover 25% of the compensation amount; - 44 - MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others vii) Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith for onward disbursal of compensation to the claimants; viii) Draw award accordingly; ix) Registry to send the trial Court records along with the copy of this judgment to the concerned Court forthwith. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn