- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27788 MFA No. 4374 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4374 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MAGANURU COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR, B D ROAD CHITRADURGA - 577 501 REP BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING M G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GURAMMA W/O LATE RAMU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. SMT. MALAMMA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT POOJARAHALLI KUDLIGI TALUK BALLARY DISTRICT - 583 218 3. SMT. ROOPA W/O SHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT BEHIND SAMPIGE Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27788 MFA No. 4374 of 2022 SIDDESHWARA SCHOOL HOLALKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501 4. KUM. AKSHAY R D/O LATE RAMU AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. GURAMMA RESPONDENT NO.1 RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 4 ARE R/AT KOTE BADAVANE MOLAKALMURU TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 535 5. SRI JAYARAMULU K N S/O NARAYANAPPA K MAJOR R/AT NO.1, RAYADURGA ROAD BAYALU ANJANEYA BADAVANE MOLAKALMURU TOWN - 577 535 (OWNER OF ASHOKA LYLAND GOODS VEHICLE BEARING NO. KA-27-A-9746) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SREE HARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.485/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-V AT CHITRADURGA AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27788 MFA No. 4374 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant - insurance company calling in question the judgment and award dated 11.04.2022, in MVC.No.485/2021, passed by the IInd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, at Chitradurga (for short ‘Tribunal’), on the ground of liability, as well as quantum. 2. Heard Sri.Vijay Kumar.D, learned counsel appearing for appellant – insurance company and Sri.Sree Harsha, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Spoorthy Hegde, learned counsel and Sri.Nagaraj, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the entire appeal paper. 3. Sri.D.Vijay Kumar, with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider the material placed before it and erred in fixing the entire liability, as well as in awarding huge compensation. In view of the same, the impugned judgment and award is unsustainable in law and requires interference. His primary contention is on liability, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27788 MFA No. 4374 of 2022 contending that the accident has taken place within 10 feet from the edge of the road and as the deceased suddenly appeared and tried to cross the road, the accident has taken place, resulting in death of Arunkumar.R, aged 23 years. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and fastened the entire liability on the insurance company. 4. The Tribunal after considering that the deceased himself was negligent and has contributed in causing the accident and LRs shall not be permitted to enrich themselves, for the wrong done by the deceased, and cannot claim any compensation. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal taking the income at Rs.17,000/- p.m. and adding 40% of the income towards future prospects and has arrived at a huge sum of compensation, which the claimants are not entitled in law. In the absence of any material produced so as to the income of the deceased, the income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (for short - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27788 MFA No. 4374 of 2022 ‘KSLSA’) for the year 2021 should have been taken which comes to Rs.15,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.17,000/- p.m. If income at Rs.15,000/- is taken and 40% is added, along with appropriate multiplier of ‘18’, the loss of dependency would be less than what has been arrived by the Tribunal and seeks to allow the appeal by setting-aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 5. 5. Whereas Sri.Harsha appeared along with Sri.Spoorthy Hedge for respondent Nos.1 to 4 with all vehemence submits that the width of the road is 33 feet, whereas the accident has taken place within 8 feet from the tip of the road, the driver of vehicle had another 23 feet of road, to avoid the accident and the lorry hit the deceased from hind side, which has resulted in fatal injuries, ultimately in death. The deceased was the only breadwinner of the family. That apart, the insurance company has not led any evidence to discharge its burden to prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27788 MFA No. 4374 of 2022 of the deceased himself or that he has contributed to the accident. 6. So far as the quantum of the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considering the fact of escalation of price in the year 2021 correctly taken monthly income at Rs.17,000/- p.m., and rightly come to the conclusion by adding 40% towards ‘loss of future prospects’ and the amount awarded under ‘filial consortium’ is on the lower side, as there are four claimants. In view of the law laid Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED V. NANU RAM & OTHERS1 each dependant are entitled for Rs.40,000/- and hence sought to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points for consideration are as under: i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the driver of the offending vehicle? 1 2018 ACJ 2782 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27788 MFA No. 4374 of 2022 ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding the compensation by taking the income at Rs.17,000/- p.m., instead of Rs.15,000/- p.m., as fixed by KSLSA? REGARDING LIABILITY : 8. My answer to the above points for consideration: (i) affirmative (ii) partly affirmative, for the following reasons: Admittedly, the date of accident resulting in death of the deceased, involvement of vehicle are not in dispute. The only question as per the appellant – insurance company is as to whether the deceased has contributed to the accident. So far as their stand before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has not led any evidence, nor produced any documents, neither there was any cross- examination to the effect that the deceased has contributed for the accident. In view of the same, the Tribunal after considering the entire material placed before - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27788 MFA No. 4374 of 2022 it came to the right conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident and the accident occurred only due to actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, while answering issue No.1. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in saddling the entire liability on the insurance company. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered against the insurance company and in favour of the claimants. REGARDING QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION : 9. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the year of accident is 2021, the income taken by the Tribunal in the absence of any material at Rs.17,000/- p.m., is not justifiable. As per the chart prepared by the KSLSA, the notional income fixed is at Rs.15,000/- p.m. The deceased was aged 22 years old, the appropriate multiplier as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27788 MFA No. 4374 of 2022 OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER2 is ‘18’. Considering the fact that the deceased was a bachelor as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS PRANAY SETHI3, 40% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects. On redetermination of the loss of dependency, the same works out as follows: Rs.15,000 + 6,000 (40%) x 12 x 18 – 50% = Rs.22,68,000/-. 10. So far as ‘FILIAL CONSORTIUM’ is concerned, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED V. NANU RAM & OTHERS4, as there are four claimants each are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Further, in view of the 2 2009 ACJ 1298 3 2017 (16) SCC 680 4 2018 ACJ 2782 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27788 MFA No. 4374 of 2022 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RASMITA BISWAL & OTHERS VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER5, there shall be an enhancement of 10% on the conventional heads for every three years. Taking into consideration the same, the compensation towards ‘loss of filial consortium’, being Rs.1,60,000/-, the escalation at 10% works out to Rs.16,000/-. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 4 + 10%) towards ‘LOSS OF FILIAL CONSORTIUM’ INCLUDING LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION’. 11. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘FUNERAL EXPENSES AND OBSEQUIES’ AND ‘LOSS OF ESTATE’ at Rs.30,000/- is just and proper and does not require any interference. However, 10% escalation is awarded. Therefore, Rs.33,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 2 + 5 (2022) 2 SC 767 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27788 MFA No. 4374 of 2022 10%) is awarded towards ‘LOSS OF ESTATE’ AND ‘FUNERAL AND TRANSPORTATION’. 12. So far as default clause of 7% interest is concerned, it is 1% higher than 6%. Since the appeal is preferred within 90 days and stay has been granted by this Court, interest at 6% p.a. is retained. 13. In summary, the total compensation re- determined by this Court under various heads is as follows: 1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 22,68,000/- 2. Filial Consortium : Rs. 1,76,000/- 3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses : Rs. 33,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 24,77,000/- 14. The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to Rs.24,77,000/- as against Rs.26,85,400/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Hence, the compensation awarded - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27788 MFA No. 4374 of 2022 to the claimants/respondents is reduced by a sum of Rs.2,08,400/- (Rs. 26,85,400 – Rs.24,77,000). 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is Allowed-In-Part; ii) The judgment and award dated 11.04.2022, in MVC.No.485/2021, passed by the IInd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, at Chitradurga is modified; iii) The claimants / respondents are entitled for a sum of Rs.24,77,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization; iv) The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27788 MFA No. 4374 of 2022 v) The appellant - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount of total re-determined compensation within Six Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. vi) Apportionment and Disbursement shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. vii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to cost. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36