- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1504 OF 2014 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 729 OF 2014 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 1504/2014 BETWEEN: SHIVARUDRAPPA DEAD BY LRS 1. BASAVARAJAPPA @ O. BASANNA S/O OBANNA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2. T. PUTTAMMA W/O BASAVARAJAPPA @ O. BASANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS (R2 DEAD ON 26.03.2014, DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 18.07.17) 3. KENCHAMMA W/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4. MAHADEVI D/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 5. VANITHA D/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.4 AND 5 ARE MINORS REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. THE APPELLANT NO.3 HERE KENCHAMMA ALL ARE R/O GANNANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. DEEPU B. M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K VENKATASHIVA REDDY S/O KRISHNAREDDY OWNER OF BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA.16A.2844, R/O BEHIND GANAPATHI TEMPLE, NEAR S.P. OFFICE, MUNICIPAL COLONY, KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KEERTHI PLAZA, 1ST FLOOR, BEHIND HEAD POST OFFICE ROAD, HOLAKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 03.11.14, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1715/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 729/2014 BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, KEERTHI PLAZA, 1ST FLOOR, BEHIND HEAD POST, OFFICE ROAD, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA. BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002, BY ITS MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BASAVARJAPPA @ O BASANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O OBANNA, 2. T PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O BASAVARAJAPPA @ O BASANNA (RESPONDENT DEAD) RESPONDENTS 1, 3 AND 4 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R2 V.O.D 18.01.17 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 3. KENCHAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA @ SHIVANNA 4. MAHADEVI AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS D/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA @ SHIVANNA 5. VANITHA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS D/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA @ SHIVANNA RESPONDENT NOS. 4 AND 5 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.3 KENCHAMMA W/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA @ SHIVANNA ALL ARE RESIDING AT GANNANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK, CHTIRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 6. K VENKATASHIVA REDDY MAJOR, S/O KRISHNAREDDY R/O BEHIND GANAPATHI TEMPLE, NEAR S.P. OFFICE, MUNICIPAL COLONY, KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DEEPU B.M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 TO R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.01.17, NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.01.17, R1, R3 AND R4 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1715/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.11,65,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 06th December 2013, passed by the Additional District Judge and Additional MACT, Chitradurga, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.1715/2009. The claimants filed MFA No.1504/2014 seeking enhancement of compensation and insurer-respondent No.2 filed MFA No.729/2014 challenging the said award on the ground that death was not due to the injury sustained in the accident and the amount of compensation awarded is on the higher side. Both the appeals arise out of a common judgment. Therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for final disposal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 22.07.2009, at around 04.15 p.m., the deceased- Shivarudrappa, was traveling as a passenger in the bus, bearing registration No.KA-16/A.2844. The driver of the bus drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the deceased- Shivarudrappa, fell down from the bus and sustained grievous injuries. He suffered from paraplegia due to injuries sustained in the incident. Inspite of continuous treatment, he succumbed to the injuries due to complications on 03.02.2011. Immediately after the incident, a complaint was lodged to the police and a criminal case was registered. The investigation officer submitted the charge sheet to the concerned Court in respect of the said accident and injury sustained by the deceased. After the death of Shivarudrappa, the matter was reported to the police and the police conducted inquest as well as postmortem. The claimants have not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 produced further report, if any, submitted by the police in respect of the death of Shivarudrappa due to injury sustained in the accident. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 4. Initially, the claim petition was filed by the deceased- Shivarudrappa to award compensation for the injury sustained in the accident. During the pendency of the said petition, he died due to injury sustained in the accident. Thereafter, the claimants were brought on record as the parents, wife and daughters of the deceased. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending bus. Respondent No.1, though appeared before the Tribunal did not challenge the claim made by the petitioners. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied contentions of the claimant and denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 insurance. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. The claimants to prove their case examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 25 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-25. Respondents examined one witness as RW-1 and marked documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3. 8. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, held that the accident occured due to negligence of driver of the bus and the deceased-Shivarudrappa, sustained various injuries in the said accident and later on succumbed to those injuries on 03.02.2011. 9. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 38 years, his earnings as Rs.5,000 per month, applied the multiplier as '15', deducted 1/4th of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 income towards personal expenses, and awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,65,000/- under following heads: Particulars Amount in Rs. Medical expenses and hospitalization charges 50,000/- Incidental and Misc expenses 15,000/- Loss of dependency to petitioner Nos.1 to 5 6,75,000/- Loss of consortium to petitioner 1,00,000/- Loss of love and affection petitioner Nos.1 & 2 1,00,000/- Loss of love and affection petitioner Nos.4 & 5 2,00,000/- Funeral, obsequies transportation of dead body etc., 25,000/- Total 11,65,000/- 10. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the amount of compensation and directed both the respondents to pay the said amount of compensation. The same is challenged in the present appeals. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 11. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation. The income of the deceased was not taken properly; future prospectus was not added to his income. The deceased was alive for more than 18 months and was suffering from paraplegia, being bedridden and one had to attend him throughout the day. He was under continuous treatment due to complications that arose in respect of the said injuries. The claimants have spent substantial amount during the said period of 18 months. He lost his entire income during the said laid-up period. All these facts were not considered. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation is not awarded under the conventional head, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram2. Therefore, they 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 2018 ACJ 2782 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 prayed to re-appreciate the evidence and enhance the compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the insurer seriously contended that there was no nexus between death and injury sustained by the deceased-Shivarudrappa. As per medical records, he had sustained fracture of vertebra and such injuries were not possible from falling off the footboard of a bus. On the contrary, such injuries could be possible if the person falls from height. Therefore, the said injuries which was claimed to have been sustained in the accident are not probable. The contention of the claimant that he died due to injuries sustained in the accident is also not a believable story. He survived for more than 18 months. According to the case of claimants, he died of septicemia not related to the injuries and it was cardiac arrest. After the death of Shivarudrappa, though the police were said to have investigated further and conducted the inquest as well as a postmortem, no additional charge sheet has been filed. No such record has been produced - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 by the claimants. It indicates that the death was not due to injury sustained in the accident. The Tribunal has failed to consider it and has passed erroneous orders. 13. He further contended that the fall from the bus was not due to negligence of driver of the bus, but deceased-Shivarudrappa, was under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, he could not balance himself and fell down from the bus. Hence, he is not entitled to claim the compensation. He further contended that the amount of compensation awarded is highly excessive, disproportionate and not just and reasonable. Therefore, even if the claimants are entitled to compensation, the said amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. On that account, prayed to set aside the impugned award. 14. I have anxiously perused the records. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment had a detailed discussion about the above said contention raised by the appellant in the appeals. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 15. Ex.P-1 is the FIR that was registered on the next date of the accident. It is in the said document that while alighting the bus, driver of the bus drove the vehicle negligently. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Part of the investigation was conducted at that point in time. Ex.P-15 reflects that he sustained about four injuries and out of them, one is fracture of vertebra. And he was charge sheeted for the offense punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC. Ex.P-7-discharge summary, discloses injuries sustained by the deceased in the incident and he was admitted to the hospital on 28.07.2009 and discharged from the hospital on 04.09.2009. He underwent surgery on 04.09.2009. The medical records produced by the claimants reveal that the deceased had been suffering from paraplegia due to compression fracture of vertebra. Ex.P-9 discloses that he was suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 71% to the spine. It appears that he was under continuous medication. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 16. Ex.P-19 is inpatient records of the District Hospital Chitradurga, wherein he was under continuous treatment. Ex.P-21 is the inquest of the dead body and Ex.P-25 is the postmortem report. Both these documents reveal the consequences of the injury sustained by the claimant and in Ex.P-25, the opinion of the doctor reads as under: "Cause of death is due to cardio-respiratory failure as a result of septicemia" The nature of injuries is mentioned in the column of the Ex.P-25. 17. The claimants examined PW-2, who has given disability certificate as per Ex.P-9. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestions of the insurer that the said Shivarudrappa did not suffer from severe injuries and was not suffering from disability to an extent of 71%, and also denied that he was suffering from paraplegia. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 18. The contention of the insurer is that he died due to a cardio respiratory failure and not due to injury sustained in the accident. It appears that the insurer has been interpreting the cause of death out of context. It is specifically mentioned that cause of death was due to cardio respiratory failure. As a result of septicemia, the post mortem reveals that the said person had complications due to the injuries sustained in the accident. These records certainly support the contention of the claimants that the death of Shivarudrappa was due to injury sustained in the accident. 19. It is true that death was caused after about 18 months from the date of the accident. The claimants have not taken pain in producing the charge sheet, if any, filed by the concerned police after the death of Shivarudrappa. Though they have conducted an inquest and postmortem that cannot be a ground to deny the compensation to which the claimants are entitled. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 20. As for the contention of the insurer that Shivarudrappa died due to his own negligence i.e., he was under the influence of alcohol, which resulted in a fall from the bus. There is an observation in the medical records that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of incident. However, there is no evidence to show that he fell down because of that. The said contention of the insurer is not supported by any materials. Hence, it cannot be considered. 21. The contention of the insurer that that a vertebral fracture could not have occurred from falling off the footboard of a bus. However, there can be no hard and fast rule in such matters. The insurer has not presented any medical officers as witnesses to support the claim that such injuries are impossible from such a fall. The nature and extent of injuries sustained in an accident depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and therefore, cannot be generalized. Therefore, the said contentions of the insurer are not tenable. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 22. The Tribunal, in detail, considered these facts and has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the bus and that the late Shivarudrappa sustained grievous injuries. Due to the said complications from the injuries, he succumbed to the injuries. The said findings are based on the materials available on record; on reappreciating the evidence, I am of the same view as expressed by the Tribunal. 23. The next question pertains to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 24. The Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, since he was unable to prove his income. 25. According to the claim petition, the injured died on 03.02.2011 i.e., nearly 18 months after the date of accident. Therefore, to assess the compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency', the income of the year 2011 has to be considered. If the chart of notional income - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is followed, the notional income of the year 2011 is Rs.6,500/-. The same can be applied to the facts of the present case. 26. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 38 years and applied proper multiplier as '15'. The Tribunal has not added future prospectus as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Since the age of the deceased was 38 years, 40% of his income has to be added towards 'future prospects'. There were five defendants in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses and on that basis, the compensation under the head loss of dependency is reassessed. 27. According to the evidence placed on record, including the evidence of PW-2, the claimant was completely bedridden due to paraplegia for nearly 18 months. During the said period, he lost his income and - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 was unable to do his regular work. The loss of this income is considered a loss of estate to the claimants, for which they are entitled to compensation. 28. The deceased was bedridden and as rightly submitted, someone had to attend to him throughout the day. Even if it is taken that Rs.200 per day was spent on attendant charges, then they must have spent minimum of Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, for 18 months, the total expenditure would be Rs.1,08,000/-, which needs to be compensated. 29. Looking at the nature of injuries, the treatment undertaken, and the fact that the claimant suffered from paraplegia and required continuous medical care from the date of the accident until his death, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side and requires enhancement. 30. The claimants are entitled to compensation under the conventional heads, as held in the case of - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra). Considering the same, the claimants are entitled to the following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of income during life time of victim- Shivarudrappa (6,500X18) 1,17,000/- Attendant charges (6,000X18) 1,08,000/- Medical expenses 50,000/- Special diet and conveyance charges 50,000/- Treatment expenses for 18 months 50,000/- Loss of dependency (6,500+40%X12X15X3/4) 12,28,500/- Loss of consortium (40,000X5) 2,00,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Funeral expenses 15,000/- Total 18,33,500/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement- Rounded off- 11,65,000/- 6,68,500/- 6,68,000/- - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 31. The claimants are also entitled to interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its realization. 32. Undisputedly, respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. 33. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeals are allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 06th December 2013, passed in MVC.No.1715/2009, by the Additional District & Sessions Judge & Additional MACT, Chitradurga, stands modified. iii) The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,68,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its realization. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27768 MFA No. 1504 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 729 of 2014 iv) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The apportionment, release and deposit of the amount as ordered by the Tribunal. vi) Whatever amount deposited by the insurer in MFA No.729/2014 shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. vii) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK