- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 637 OF 2019 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9572 OF 2018 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 637/2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI VASANTH KUMAR K R S/O SANNARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. SMT RENUKAMMA W/O VASANTH KUMAR K R AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS APPELLANT NO.1 & 2 ARE R/AT KAMALAPURA VILLAGE, KAMALAPURA POST, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR-572 217 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAGHU R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS MANAGER YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 2. SRI GOVINDAIAH M NO.18, HALEPALYA VILLAGE & POST, MALUR, KOLAR-563 137 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2238/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. IN MFA NO. 9572/2018 BETWEEN: THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO.28 CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD BENGALURU-560001 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VASANTHA KUMAR K R S/O SANNA RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. SMT RENUKAMMA W/O VASANTHA KUMAR K R AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KAMALAPURA KAMALAPURA POST HANDANAKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMAKURU-572217 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 3. GOVINDAIAH M NO.18 HALEPALYA VILLAGE AND POST MALURU KOLAR KARNATAKA-563137 4. BHARATHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SURVEY NO.28, 1ST FLOOR THE FERNS ICON, NEXT TO AKME BALLET DODDANEKUNDI OFFICE OUTER RING ROAD BENGALURU 5. SANTHOSH H K S/O KARIYAPPA NO.5, INDIRA NAGAR KAREHOBANAHALLI NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560073 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHU R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R4 R3 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2238/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, [SCCH-18] PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT Both the appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 calling in question the judgment and award dated 06.10.2018 passed in MVC No.2238/2017 by the III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru2. Hence, they are taken up together for consideration. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that, claiming compensation for the death of one Manikanta3 in the road traffic accident which occurred on 03.02.2017, his parents filed a claim petition contending, inter alia, that when the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motorcycle along with his friend one Santhosh who was riding said motorcycle, the driver of a Canter lorry negligently parked the said vehicle on the road without any signal or indication, as a result of which, the motorcycle hit the rear side of the Cantor, resulting in the accident in question, 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 whereunder, the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. 4. The insurer and owner of the Cantor lorry were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the insurer and owner of the motorcycle were arrayed as respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively in the claim proceedings. The Insurer of the Canter lorry filed statement to objections denying the assertions made in the claim petition. It is also contended that the insured Canter lorry was not involved in the accident and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the rider of the motorcycle who was the deceased, who is solely responsible for causing the accident. The respondent No.3 - insurer of the motorcycle filed statement of objections, wherein it is averred that the deceased was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident. That the deceased did not have a driving licence to drive the said vehicle. It is denied that the said Santosh was riding the motorcycle. It is specifically averred that Santosh was travelling as a pillion rider and the deceased was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident. The Respondent Nos.2 and 4 in the claim proceedings i.e., the owner of the Canter lorry as well as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 owner of the motorcycle have remained ex-parte in the claim proceedings. 5. Claimant No.2 was examined as PW.1 and another witness was examined as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P36 have been marked in evidence. The representative of the insurer of the Canter lorry- respondent No.1 has been examined as RW.1; the investigating officer has been examined as RW.2; a doctor has been examined as RW.3 and the representative of the insurer of the motorcycle i.e., respondent No.3 has been examined as RW.4. Exs.R1 to R6 have been marked in evidence. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 6.10.2018 has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of ₹ 12,44,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. The Tribunal held that the owner and insurer of the Canter lorry were liable to pay the compensation awarded. 6. Being aggrieved, the insurer of the Canter lorry (respondent No.1 before the Tribunal) has preferred MFA No. 9572/2018 and the claimants have preferred MFA No.637/2019. 7. Learned counsel Ashok N.Patil representing the insurer vehemently contends that the material on record, more - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 particularly Exs.R4 and R5 clearly demonstrate that the deceased was riding the motorcycle and one Santhosh was travelling in the motorcycle as a pillion rider, whereas it was averred in the claim petition that the said Santhosh was the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, it is contended that the basis on which the claim proceedings having been initiated, being a false one, the case put forth by the claimants in the claim proceedings is not liable to be accepted. It is further contended that the Canter lorry was stationary on the road due to a mechanical failure and that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the rider of the motorcycle, who was the deceased himself. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erroneously held that the driver of the Canter lorry was negligent in causing the accident in question and ought not to have fastened the liability on the insurer of the said Canter lorry. It is further contended that the road, which was a National Highway was 35 feet wide and the Canter lorry was parked towards the left side of the road and that there was 25 feet space to the right side of the stationary lorry to enable the rider of the motorcycle to avoid the accident in question. It is further contended that the rider of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 motorcycle was not wearing a headgear. It is hence contended that the Tribunal ought to have at least recorded a finding of contributory negligence. In the alternative, it is also contended that the quantum of compensation as also the rate of interest is on the higher side. 8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri R. Raghu appearing for the claimants/appellants, justifying the findings recorded by the Tribunal, contends that the reliance placed by the insurer on Exs.R4 and R5, has rightly not been accepted by the Tribunal having regard to the testimony of PW.2, who has categorically stated that his signatures were taken in the hospital on certain records and he has signed the same, without knowing the contents of the documents. That PW.2 was not an eye-witness to the accident. That the investigating officer (RW.2) has supported the case of the claimants and he was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the claimants. That the police authorities having filed a charge sheet against the driver of the Canter lorry, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material on record and held that the driver of the Cantor lorry stationed the vehicle on the National Highway without any indication and hence, the finding of the Tribunal on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 negligence, whereunder it is held that the driver of the lorry was entirely negligent in causing the accident is just and proper. That the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced. 9. Sri B.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the insurer of the motorcycle justifies the award of the Tribunal. 10. The submissions of the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the contention put forth by respondent No.1 - insurer with regard to the deceased riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident? ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal on negligence is just and proper? iii) Whether the quantum of compensation award by the Tribunal, as also the interest, is liable to be interfered with? Re. question Nos.(i) and (ii): 11. The claimants in the claim petition have specifically averred that the deceased was travelling on the motorcycle as a pillion rider and his friend Santosh was riding the motorcycle. The first respondent - insurer of the Canter lorry has denied the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 averments made in the claim petition and has specifically averred that the deceased was riding the motorcycle, while the said Santhosh was travelling as a pillion rider. The claimant No.2 was examined as PW.1. The police documents i.e., FIR (Ex.P1), charge sheet (Ex.P7) and other documents have been produced, which disclose that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the Canter lorry. The investigating officer was summoned by the insurer of the Canter lorry and examined as RW.2. However, he has deposed that the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider and the said Santosh was riding the motorcycle. Although, RW.2 was treated as a hostile witness and was cross-examined, there is no statement that is forthcoming in the said cross-examination, which is contrary to his testimony. 12. The doctor has been examined as RW.3, who has produced an attested copy of the Medico Legal Case4 Register pertaining to the said Santosh (Ex.R4) as also pertaining to the deceased (Ex.R5). RW.3 has deposed that based on the information provided, the contents of Exs.R4 and R5 have been filled up. However, it is pertinent to note here that in the cross- 4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘MLC’ - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 examination of RW.3, he stated that he has not entered the details/particulars in Exs.R4 and R5. It is evident from Ex.R5, which pertains to the deceased, that it is stated that the deceased was riding the two wheeler at the time of the accident and the signature and thumb impression of one Prakash who was stated to be the brother-in-law of the deceased is also forthcoming in said Ex.R5. It is evident from Ex.R4, which pertains to the said Santhosh that it is stated that he was travelling on the motorcycle as a pillion rider. The thumb impression of Santosh is also forthcoming in Ex.R4. 13. After the testimony of RW.3 was adduced, the claimants have examined PW.2, namely Prakash, who was stated to have signed Ex.R5. PW.2 has deposed that upon receipt of a call from one of his relatives regarding the accident, he rushed to the hospital and his signature was taken for the purpose of handing over of the body of the deceased. It is further deposed that he was not aware of the contents of the MLC and he did not question anybody since he was in a hurry to take the dead body. It is also deposed that he was not an eye-witness to the accident. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 14. Although, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the insurer of the Canter lorry that the basis of the claim of the claimants itself is based on a falsity, it is pertinent to note that the Tribunal upon appreciation of the material on record, noticing that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the Canter lorry, has not accepted the contentions put forth on behalf of the insurer of the Canter lorry. 15. Upon a re-appreciation of the material on record, it is pertinent to note here that although the insurer of the Canter lorry has taken a specific contention that the deceased was riding the motorcycle, having regard to the fact that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the Canter lorry, as also since the testimony of the investigating officer-RW.2 is not in support of the case of the insurer, as well as the person, who is stated to have affixed his thumb impression/signature on Ex.R5 having deposed as PW2 with regard to the circumstances under which the said thumb impression/signature had been affixed, keeping in mind the fact that RW.3 has not written the contents of Exs.R4 and R5, the Tribunal was justified in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 disbelieving the case put forth by the insurer of the Canter lorry. 16. Further, with respect to the aspect of negligence, the Tribunal has recorded the following findings: 24. In the present case, the respondents have concentrated on the point of who is the rider of the motorcycle. But it is not relevant to find out rash and negligent act at the time of accident. The facts itself speaks about the driver of canter stationed his vehicle in the National Highway without any indication. There is no records in respect to taking of precautious and there is no evidence in respect to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle and as such, question of considering the contributory negligence does not arise. Further the petitioners have produced the driving license of deceased Manikanta and the same is marked as Ex-P-35. “ (emphasis supplied) 17. The Tribunal has also noticed that the police authorities have filed charge sheet against the driver of the Canter lorry and the said material having been placed on record by the claimants, since the testimony of the investigating officers-RW.2 is also not supporting the case of the insurer of the Canter lorry, the Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the driver of the Canter lorry was solely negligent in causing the accident in question. It is further pertinent to note that no evidence has been adduced by the respondents with regard to negligence, inasmuch as the driver of the Canter - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 lorry has not been examined, nor has any independent eye- witness to the accident been examined. In the absence of the same, the appellant/insurer of the Canter lorry, has failed in demonstrating that the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the manner of occurrence of the accident as averred in the claim petition, as also with regard to the negligence as held by the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. 18. Hence question Nos.(i) and (ii) framed for consideration are answered in the affirmative. Re. question No.(iii): 19. The deceased was aged 24 years as on the date of the accident i.e., on 3.2.2017. Hence, the Tribunal has applied the appropriate multiplier of ‘18’, which is just and proper. 20. It was averred that the deceased was carrying on business and earning ₹25,000/- p.m. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased as ₹7,500/- p.m. 21. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the bank statements of the deceased having been produced as Exs.P21 to P23, the monthly income of the deceased is required to be assessed at a - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 higher amount. However, it is pertinent to note that the bank statements produced as Exs.P22 and P23 are for the year 2015. Ex.P21 is the bank statement, which is for the period immediately preceding the accident, which does not show any worthwhile transactions in support of the contention that the deceased was carrying on business. In view of the same and keeping in mind the date of the accident, the national income of the deceased be re-assessed as `11,000/- p.m. 22. 40% is to be added towards future prospects in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi5. 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses since the deceased was unmarried. Hence, loss of dependency is re- assessed as (`11,000/- + 40% - 50% x12x18) `16,63,200/- as against `11,34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 23. The claimants being parents, loss of consortium is to be awarded to the claimants in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanu Ram Alias Chubru Ram6 at 5 (2017)16 SCC 680 6 (2018)18 SCC 130 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 `40,000/- each together with an escalation of 20%. Hence, loss of consortium is re-assessed as (`48,000/-x2) `96,000/-. 24. The compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate also has to be awarded in terms of the aforesaid judgment in a sum of `15,000/- each together with escalation at 20% and accordingly, a sum of `18,000/- each is awarded towards the same. 25. It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. However, taking judicial notice of the interest payable towards fixed deposits, it is just and proper to award interest at 7% p.a. 26. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation re-assessed is as follows: Sl. No Compensation Head Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (`) Amount awarded by this Court (`) 1 Loss of dependency 1134000.00 1663200.00 2 Loss of consortium 80000.00 96000.00 3 Towards transportation of dead body funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses 15000.00 18000.00 4 Loss of estate 15000.00 18000.00 Total 1244000.00 1795200.00 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 27. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of `17,95,200/- as against `12,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 7% p.a. 28. Accordingly, question No.(iii) is answered in the affirmative. 29. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i) The appeals are allowed in part; ii) The judgment and award dated 06.10.2018 passed in MVC No.2238/2017 by the III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is hereby modified holding that the claimants shall be entitled to a total compensation of `17,95,200/- together with interest at 7% p.a., from the date of petition till date of realization. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered; iii) The amount deposited by the appellant in MFA No.9572/2018 together with records be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal. The - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28229 MFA No. 637 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 9572 of 2018 balance amount, if any, to be deposited within six weeks; iv) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly; v) In view of the disposal of the main appeals, IA No.1/2020 filed by the claimants in MFA No.9572/2018 also stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS,ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33