- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30139-DB MFA No. 3345 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4128 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3345 OF 2022 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4128 OF 2022 (MV-D) IN MFA No.3345/2022 BETWEEN: M/S. LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. PRESENTLY HAVING ITS OFFICE NO.21/15, "THE LAND MARK" 4TH FLOOR, NEAR TRINITY METRO STATION M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHALINI R. W/O. LATE HEMANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 2. MASTER LALITH KUMAR H. S/O. LATE HEMANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS. 3. SRI NAGARAJU S/O. GANGAYYA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30139-DB MFA No. 3345 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4128 of 2022 4. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SHALINI R. APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT RACHANAMADU KENGERI HOBLI, TATHAGUNI POST BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560 062. 5. M/S. JYOTHI CONMIX SY.NO.93/2 AVADADENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 106 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.S. GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI H.K. HONNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5) * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12-1-2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.4984 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND ADDITIONAL MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-24), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,05,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA NO.4128/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHALINI R. W/O. LATE HEMANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30139-DB MFA No. 3345 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4128 of 2022 2. MASTER LALITH KUMAR H. S/O. LATE HEMANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS. 3. SRI NAGARAJU S/O. GANGAYYA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 4. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT RACHANAMADU KENGERI HOBLI TATHAGUNI POST BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560 062. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI A.S. GIRISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. JYOTHI CONMIX SY.NO.93/2, AVADADENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 106 BY ITS PARTNER. ALSO AT: NO.20, SURVEY NO.132 KUMBALGODU INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSORE ROAD KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 074. 2. LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED OFFICE NO.1, REAR PORTION OLD NO.28, NEW NO.23 RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU-560 025 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30139-DB MFA No. 3345 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4128 of 2022 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.K. HONNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.4984/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-24, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) MFA No.3345/2022 is filed by the Insurance company challenging the judgment and award 12.01.2022 passed in MVC No.4984/2018 by learned XXII Addl. Small Causes and Addl. MACT, Bangalore on the ground of negligence and quantum of compensation, whereas, MFA No.4128/2022 is filed by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30139-DB MFA No. 3345 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4128 of 2022 claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal. As these two appeals are arising out of common judgment and award of the Tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Tribunal are as under:- On 05.07.2018, at about 8.15 p.m., one Sri. Hemanth Kumar was cautiously riding his Honda Deo Scooter bearing Registration No.KA-41-EH-2837 on Chikkegowdanapalya main road and when he reached near Dasegowdanapalya, at that time, a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-3562 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Honda Dio motor cycle and due to the said impact, Hemanth Kumar fell down and sustained fatal injuries and on the way to hospital, Hemanth Kumar succumbed to the injuries. Hence, a complaint was lodged, which led to filing of FIR and investigation. In this regard, the claimants filed claim petition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30139-DB MFA No. 3345 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4128 of 2022 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.20,05,000/- with 6% interest p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. 4. The claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in MVC No.4984/2018 on the ground that claimants are the wife, minor son and parents of deceased Hemanth Kumar. The claimants have taken the contention that Hemanth Kumar was aged 32 years, hale and healthy and working as a Team Leader at Arthik Ventures and drawing a salary of Rs.18,000/- and incentives of around Rs.10,000/- p.m. and on account of untimely death of Hemanth Kumar, the claimants lost the sole bread earner of the family. Being aggrieved by the award, the claimants are before this Court. 5. Per-contra, Sri Ravi S. Samprathi, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company in MFA No.3345/2022 contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess the valid driving licence to drive the same and hence, respondent No.5- owner of the lorry committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy and thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30139-DB MFA No. 3345 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4128 of 2022 directing appellant/Insurance company to satisfy the award and later to recover the same from respondent No.5. Infact, the appellant-Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Further, the finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the judgment of this Court in Prathap v. The Royal Sundram Alliance in MFA No.7960/2016. The Tribunal has granted higher compensation on all heads without any material on record. Further, learned counsel submits that the rider of the motor cycle negligently rode his vehicle on the middle of the road and dashed against the lorry. Thus, the accident is outcome of negligence of rider of the motor cycle. Hence, there is contributory negligence on the part of deceased Hemanth Kumar and the driver of the lorry is not responsible for the accident. On this ground, he prayed to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance company and dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants. 6. As there is no dispute regarding the death of deceased Hemanth Kumar, who died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 05.07.2018 and since the Insurance Company has taken contention that there was contributory negligence on the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30139-DB MFA No. 3345 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4128 of 2022 part of the rider of the motorcycle, the following points which arise for our consideration in these appeals are: i) Whether the Insurance Company prove that the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of rider of motor cycle? ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or it requires enhancement or reduction? 7. In so far as, contributory negligence is concerned, according to Insurance company, the driver of the lorry did not possess valid driving licence to drive the lorry, thereby, the owner of the lorry committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy, however, the Tribunal has committed an error in directing the Insurance company to satisfy the award, later, to recover the same from Owner of the lorry-respondent No.5. Further, the Insurance company has taken the contention that the rider of the motor cycle without observing that the lorry was proceeding on the middle of the road, dashed against the lorry. Hence, he has contributed negligence. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30139-DB MFA No. 3345 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4128 of 2022 8. From perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the driver of the lorry is made as accused and the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry, after due investigation. In this regard, the claimants have examined an eyewitness to the incident PW-2, who has stated that the accident occurred due to negligent act of driver of the lorry. Ex-P3 spot panchanama, Ex-P4 spot sketch clearly demonstrates that the lorry was proceeding from Kanakapura towards Nice Road, and it came extremely on right side as shown in the sketch i.e., the lorry turned towards extreme right side. The width of the road is 60ft and the lorry turned extreme right side upto 40 feet. Thus, it shows that there was an extreme negligence on the part of driver of the lorry. Hence, liability cannot be fastened on the rider of the motor cycle. 9. It is not in dispute that deceased Hemanth Kumar died in a road traffic accident. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years and working as a Team leader at Arthik Ventures and getting salary of Rs.18,000/- and incentives around Rs.10,000/- p.m. The claimant Nos.1 and 2 are wife and minor son and claimant Nos.3 and 4 are parents of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30139-DB MFA No. 3345 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4128 of 2022 deceased Hemanth Kumar. Except the oral testimony of PW-3- employer, no documents in proof of income of deceased Hemanth Kumar was produced. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and The High Court Legal Service Committee, Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to re-assess the compensation on the basis of notional income of the deceased. The accident occurred in the year 2018 and in the absence of proof of income, notional income would be assessed at Rs.12,500/- p.m., instead of Rs.9,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal. 10. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi & Ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of income is to be added towards future prospects. 40% of Rs.12,500/- works out to Rs.5,000/- Therefore, the total income works out to Rs.17,500(Rs.12,500/-+5,000/-). There are four dependants and hence 1/4th is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. 1/4th of Rs.17,500/- works out to Rs.4,375/-. Total income works out to Rs.13,125(Rs.17,500-4,375/-) and annual - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30139-DB MFA No. 3345 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4128 of 2022 income works out to Rs.1,57,500/-(Rs.13,125x 12) and multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is '16'. Thus 'loss of dependency' is reassessed as Rs.25,20,000/- (Rs.1,57,500 x 16) and it is awarded as against Rs.20,05,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others1, claimant no1. being the wife, she is entitled to spousal consortium of Rs.48,000/-(Rs.40,000+20% escalation), claimant No.2 being the minor son, he is entitled to parental consortium of Rs.48,000/-(Rs.40,000+20%) and claimants Nos.3 and 4 being the parents of deceased Hemanth Kumar, they are entitled to filial consortium of Rs.96,000(Rs.40,000x 2+20%), which totally works out to Rs.1,92,000/- towards 'loss of consortium'. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses' with 20% escalation which comes to Rs.18,000/- and towards 'loss of estate' Rs.15,000/-(Rs.15,000 +20%) which comes to 1 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30139-DB MFA No. 3345 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4128 of 2022 Rs.18,000/-. Thus, totally, the claimants-appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.27,48,000/- as per the table below: 12. In view of the above discussion, point no.2 is answered accordingly. 13. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER (i) MFA No.3345/2022 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. Sl.No. Head Amount of Compensation in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 25,20,000-00 1. Loss of Estate 18,000-00 2. Loss of Consortium 1,92,000-00 3. Towards Funeral Expenses 18,000-00 TOTAL 27,48,000-00 LESS: COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL 20,05,000-00 ENHANCED COMPENSATION 7,43,000-00 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30139-DB MFA No. 3345 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4128 of 2022 (ii) MFA No.4128/2022 filed by the claimants is allowed in-part by enhancing the compensation in favour of claimants by Rs.7,43,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. (iii) In so far as, apportionment, deposit and release, the judgment and award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. (iv)Amount in deposit be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith. (v) Registry is directed to send back the Tribunal records along with copy of this judgment. (vi) Pending IA(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22