- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7664 OF 2018 (MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.21 OF 2021 (MV-D) IN MFA No.7664/2018 BETWEEN: MANAGER RELIANCE GIC LTD. KRUTHIKA ARCADE HOLENARSIPURA ROAD HASSAN NOW REPRESENTED BY LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GIC LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING NO.28, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RAMYA W/O. ASHOK AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. 2. KUM. SINCHANA S.A. D/O. ASHOK AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 3. MASTER MITHUN GOWDA S.A. S/O. ASHOK AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN HER MOTHER SMT. RAMYA. 4. SMT. KALAMMA W/O. THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS SINGAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT DODDAGINNI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. 5. FIROZ KHAN S/O. AMJAD KHAN MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.930 KSP QUARTERS ALLAHALLI BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 062 CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LINGARAJU K.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4; (R-2 AND R-3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R-1); VIDE ORDER DATED 10-8-2021, NOTICE TO R-5 IS DISPENSED WITH) * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27-2-2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1747 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT [SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA], AWARDING - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 COMPENSATION OF RS.24,83,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA.CROB NO.21/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RAMYA W/O. ASHOK AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 2. KUM. SINCHANA S.A. D/O. ASHOK AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS. 3. MASTER MITHUN GOWDA S.A. S/O. ASHOK AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS. CROSS OBJECTOR NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER THE CROSS OBJECTOR NO.1. CROSS OBJECTOR NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT DODDAGINNI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116. 4. SMT. KALAMMA W/O. THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDENT OF SINGAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211. ...CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI K.R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 AND: 1. FIROZ KHAN S/O. AMJAD KHAN MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.930 KSP QUARTERS ALLAHALLI BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 062 CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-560 062. 2. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KRUTHIKA ARCADE HOLENARASIPURA ROAD HASSAN-573 201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; VIDE ORDER DATED 11-8-2021, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH) * * * THIS MFA CROB. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27-2-2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1747 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT, (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MFA AND MFA CROB. ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7664/2018 is filed by the appellant - Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (Sitting at Channarayapatna), (for short, "the Tribunal") in MVC.No.1747/2014 dated 27.02.2018 on the ground of quantum of compensation and liability, whereas, MFA.Crob.No.21/2021 is filed by the cross objectors- claimants for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.2014 at about 2.25 p.m., Car bearing Registration No. KA-03-C- 9061 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 dashed to the road divider at NH-75 - B.M.Road, near Belluru Cross, as a result of which, Car turned turtle and Ashoka, who was inmate of the Car sustained injury. Immediately, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, but he succumbed to the injuries on 25.04.2014. Due to his death, wife, two children and his mother lost their dependency and hence, claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on various heads. 3. Heard Sri B.Pradeep, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Sri. Lingaraju K.R., learned counsel for the claimants, and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 4. Sri B.Pradeep, learned counsel for the Insurance Company in MFA.No.7664 of 2018 and respondent No.2 in MFA.Crob.No.21 of 2021, has contended that the Tribunal has failed to notice that as on the date of accident, the Car bearing registration No.KA-03-C-9061 did not possess - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 permit and valid Driving License as on the date of the accident. There was also delay in registering the complaint and the contents of Exs.P1 and P2 - FIR and complaint clearly demonstrate that as on the date of accident, four persons were travelling in the Car and nobody have sustained injuries except deceased Ashoka. In fact, as on the date of the accident, deceased Ashoka was alone in the Car, but one Gangadhara was inplanted as the driver in the alleged accident in order to get the compensation from the Insurance Company colluding with the owner and police authorities. Further, the Tribunal has committed an error by granting interest @ 9% per annum instead of 6% per annum. As the award passed by the Tribunal is high and exorbitant, he prayed to allow his appeal. 5. Per contra, Sri. Lingaraju K.R., learned counsel for the respondents - claimants in MFA. No.7664 of 2018 and learned counsel for cross objectors in MFA.Crob.No.21 of 2021 vehemently contended that, the deceased was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 driver-cum-agriculturist and his income was more than Rs.14,000/- per month. To substantiate this claimants have produced Ex.P8 - Copy of Driving License and Exs.P10 to P14 - 5 RTC Extracts. Further, the Tribunal has granted meager compensation under the head medical expenses, as deceased was admitted to several hospitals to medicate the injuries and huge amount had been incurred. Hence, he prayed to allow his cross objection. 6. We have perused the impugned judgment and award and submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties. The points that arises for our consideration in this appeal is: 1. Whether the appellant - Insurance Company has failed to prove that as on the date of the accident deceased Ashoka was driving the Car? 2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement or reduction? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 7. Insofar as contention of the Insurance Company is concerned, from perusal of oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence of Ex.P3 - PM report, Ex.P5 - spot mahazar, it clearly establishes that as on the date of accident deceased Ashoka was traveling as a passenger and one Gangadhar was driving the vehicle. As per the contents of charge sheet of the Investigating Officer it is the clear opinion that deceased was traveling as passenger and Gangadhara was driving the vehicle. The contents of charge sheet were not disputed by the Insurance Company and it is not challenged before the Court of law. 8. Further, to substantiate the contention of the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company has not examined the expert witness. Further, the Insurance Company has not disputed the fact that as on the date of the accident deceased Ashoka was driving the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal has clearly held that as on the date of the accident, Gangadhar was driving the vehicle and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 deceased was traveling as passenger. Hence, no interference is called for. 9. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Insurance Company has not disputed the accident and the death of deceased Ashoka. As on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 34 years and he was agriculturist-cum-driver. The claimants have taken contention that prior to the accident, the income of the deceased was more than Rs.14,000/-. No documentary evidence is placed on record with regard to the income, in the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the Circular issued by the 'Karnataka State Legal Services Authority' and 'High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru', we deem it appropriate to reassess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,500/- per month against Rs.14,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. The deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of accident. The respondents have not disputed this fact. As per the ratio laid down in the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SMT. SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, considering the age of the deceased, '16' multiplier would be applicable. 10. The deceased died leaving behind his wife, two children and his mother and therefore, appropriate deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4th. By placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V. PRANAY SETHI reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the 'loss of dependency' is calculated as under: 8500 + 40% = 11,900 x 1/4 = 8925 x 12 x 16 = 17,13,600/- 11. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- towards 'medical expenses' as per the medical bills, same is maintained. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards love and affection. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding huge compensation under the conventional heads. In the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi's case, stated supra, has discussed about granting the compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ and has also issued guidelines for grant of ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’ and ‘filial consortium’. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) towards ‘loss of consortium’ as against Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 towards 'transportation of dead body and funeral expenses'. 14. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation as under: HEADS Rs. 1 Loss of dependency 17,13,600.00 2 Medical expenses 1,32,000.00 3 Loss of consortium 1,60,000.00 4 Loss of estate 15,000.00 5 Funeral expenses 15,000.00 Total 20,35,600.00 15. In all, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.20,35,600/- as against Rs.24,83,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for reduced compensation of Rs.4,47,400/-. 16. In the result, we pass the following: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 O R D E R i. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7664 of 2018 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed-in-part. ii. MFA.Crob.No.21 of 2021 filed by the cross objectors- claimants is dismissed. iii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled for reduced compensation of Rs.20,35,600/- as against Rs.24,83,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of its realisation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs.4,47,400/-. iv. The Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount together with interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34119-DB MFA No. 7664 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2021 v. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. vi. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of award of the Tribunal. vii. Draw a modified award accordingly. viii. No order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the main appeals, interlocutory applications, if any, stand dismissed. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal along with its record, forthwith. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13