- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5217 OF 2025 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HUBBALI BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, V.A. KALBURGI SKYER, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGARA, HUBBALLI. NOW REP BY THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR, (LEVEL-6), GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 59TH 'C' CROSS, 4TH 'M' BLOCK, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.A. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT SWAPNA R @SWAPNAMMA, W/O. KUMAR @KUMARAPPA, 2. KUMARAPPA, S/O. RAMAPPA CHALUVADI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/O. 77-67, GANDHINAGARA, MAYAKONDA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. BASAVARAJA @ BASAVARAJAPPA B S/O. BORAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. BAVIHAL VILLAGE, NARAGANAHALLI POST, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. 4. BASAVARAJAPPA N.P. S/O. PAKIRAPPA, MAJOR, R/O. NARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 307/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025 ADDL. MACT DAVANAGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.22,46,320/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. THIS APPEAL, 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 B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The Insurer who is called upon to pay the compensation in a sum of Rs.22,46,320/- to the claimants [the parents of a certain Sri Rangaswamy] in MVC No.307/2021 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Davanagere [for short, 'the Tribunal'] has preferred this appeal. The Tribunal has granted to the claimants Rs.22,46,320/- under the following heads: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025 Sl. No. Head of Compensation Amount [Rs.] 1 Loss of dependency 16,20,000 2 Loss of estate 15,000 3 Funeral expenses 15,000 4 Loss of Consortium 80,000 5 Laid up period 23,100 6 Attendance charge 23,100 7 Medical bills 4,70,117 Total 22,46,317 Rounded off 22,46,320 2. The claimants' case is that their son, Sri Rangaswamy, was proceeding on a two-wheeler when a Tata Ace Goods vehicle insured with the appellant dashed against the two-wheeler resulting in their son suffering injuries requiring hospitalization for 65 days, including 45 days in ICU with M/s. SSIMS High Tech Hospital, Davanagere. The claimants assert that the deceased was aged 18 years as on the date of the accident, that he was working as a Building Contractor earning Rs.35,000/- per month and that with the loss of their son, they have lost a dependent and hence they are entitled to compensation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025 3. The Tribunal, while answering the Issue on whether the claimants prove that the accident was because of the rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle, has answered that the driver of the goods vehicle was rash and negligent. The Tribunal's conclusion in this regard is because the driver of the goods vehicle is charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. 4. Sri N A Mallikarjuna Reddy, the learned counsel for Sri B Pradeep on record for the appellant, submits that: [a] the deceased has died four months after the accident, and therefore, the nexus between the demise and the injury suffered in the accident is not established, [b] the deceased was riding without a license and as such he is responsible for the accident, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025 [c] the Tribunal has taken a higher income as notional income in deciding the loss of dependency. 5. The appellant's grievance based on these grounds is examined in the light of the Tribunal’s reasoning on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The Tribunal has recorded that the deceased, Sri Rangaswamy, who suffered head injuries and injuries all over the body in the accident on 11.03.2020, was immediately taken to M/s. SSIMS High-tech Hospital, Davanagere, where he was an in-patient for the period between 11.03.2020 and 26.05.2020. 6. The deceased, Sri Rangaswamy, was in the ICU for 45 days, and he was discharged but completely bedridden even as on the time of discharge, and ultimately, he breathed his last on 04.07.2020. The fact that the deceased suffered injuries, which required hospitalization and he was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025 completely bedridden even when he was discharged, undermines the appellant's case that there is no nexus between the injuries suffered and the death. 7. The appellant proposes to deflect its liability contending that the deceased was not holding a license yet driving a two-wheeler. The Tribunal's finding is that the accident is because of the negligence of the driver of the goods vehicle, which is insured with the appellant. If the negligence is in the driver of the goods vehicle, and there is nothing to bring on record that the deceased had contributed to the accident, even if the deceased did not hold the license, that in itself cannot be a reason to hold that the appellant can deflect its liability. 8. On the last segment viz., the computation of loss of dependency, the claimants' case is that their son was a Building Contractor earning Rs.35,000/- per month. The Tribunal has not accepted this evidence but has computed loss of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27556-DB MFA No. 5217 of 2025 dependency taking notional income as per the chart evolved for settlement in Lok Adalat. The notional income as per the chart is taken to ensure there is consistency and uniformity where there is no proof of actual income. In the circumstances, this Court opines that there is no justification for interference on any of the afore grounds, and hence, the following: ORDER The appeal stands rejected. The statutory deposit, deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-