- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36139 MFA No. 3566 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3566 OF 2024(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MR. BERNAAD MENDONSE @ BERNARD WALTER MENDONCA, S/O. LATE JAKOOB MENDONCE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. MELROY MENDONCA @ MELROY, S/O. BERNAAD MENDONSE @ BERNARD WALTER MENDONCA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 3. BRAYAN JUDE MENDONCA, S/O BERNAAD MENDONSE @ BERNARD WALTER MENDONCA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, THE APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER, THE APPELLANT NO.1 HEREIN. ALL ARE R/O. HOUSE NO.7-19(1), THUDAM THALIPADY VILLAGE, AIKALA POST, KINNIGOLI, MANGALURU TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B. R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36139 MFA No. 3566 of 2024 AND: 1. BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, THE FERNS ICON, SY NO.28, DODDANAKUNDI, OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 037, NOW ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, NO.414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDHIVINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI MUMBAI - 400 025, LOCAL OFFICE MAXIMUS BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, NALAPAD RESIDENCY, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, MANGALURU - 575 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. MR. WILSON RODRIGUES S/O AVALIN RODRIGUES, AGED MAJOR, R/AT H NO.1-96, KALUR VILLAGE, AIKALA VIA, KINNIGOLI, MANGALURU TALUK - 574 150. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2- V/C/O DATED 12.09.2025, NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.01.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.457/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36139 MFA No. 3566 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Guruprasad B.R., learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel who appears for respondent No.1. 2. The claimants in MVC No.457/2018 that stood pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru, D.K. and was disposed of through orders dated 09.01.2024 are before this Court challenging the order rendered. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order of the Tribunal in all aspects is justifiable except in respect of taking the age of the deceased Meenakshi as on the date of accident. Learned counsel submits that the deceased Meenakshi was aged around 39 years by the date of accident and to prove the said fact the appellants produced Ex.P11- Voter Identity Card. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 43 years as on the date of accident and thereby erred in respect of the future prospects to be applied as provided under law and also the appropriate multiplier as envisaged. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36139 MFA No. 3566 of 2024 4. Per contra, the submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that the Tribunal basing on Ex.P8 - Post Mortem report took the age of the deceased Meenakshi as 43 years and therefore the award of the Tribunal needs no interference. 5. The appellants themselves in their claim petition made a clear mention that as on the date of accident the deceased Meenakshi was aged 43 years. Further Ex.P8-Post Mortem report also reveals that the deceased Meenakshi was aged around 43 years by the date of accident. The Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India which is also called Voters Identity Card cannot be taken to be a substantive document in proof of age of a particular person. 6. Having considered the fact that the appellants themselves asserted that the deceased Meenakshi was aged around 43 years by the date of accident which is also supported by the contents of Ex.P8-Post Mortem report, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal did not err in taking the age of the deceased as 43 years by the date of accident and applying the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36139 MFA No. 3566 of 2024 required parameters. Therefore, this Court ultimately holds that the appeal lacks merits. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4