Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202048 OF 2025 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202046 OF 2025(MV-D) MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202091 OF 2025(MV-D) MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 200032 OF 2025(MV-D)
IN MFA No.202048/2025: BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DOOR No.12-10-89/1, 1ST FLOOR, ANAGA COMPLEX NEAR MALESHWARA CHOWK, RAICHUR. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI MOHD. ABDUL QUAYUM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. B SUJATHA W/O LATE MALLIKARJUNA AGE 23 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
2. SMT.NAGAMMA W/O. BOYA GUDSI HANUMANTHA @ HANUMANTHU D/O. MUNINTI LINGANNA AGE 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
3. BOYA GUDSI HANUMANTHU S/O. CHINNA YENKANNA AGE 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRIL., ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HOUSE NO 1-74 KUTKANOOR VILLAGE IEEJA MANDALA, DIST. MEHABOOBNAGAR NOW RESIDING AT HANCHINAL VILLAGE TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584128. 4. RAVIKUMAR S/O. ESANNA AGE MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF BOLERO BEARING No.KA-36/A-9281 R/O THALAMARI VILLAGE TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584140. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PATIL SHANTABAI SUBHASH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.467-468/2023 BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR. B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12-03-2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.467-468/2023 BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR EXONERATING THE LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT C) PASS ANY SUCH ORDER THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
IN MFA No.202046/2025:
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD DOOR NO 12-10-89/1, 1ST FLOOR ANAGA COMPLEX, NEAR MALESHWARA CHOWK RAICHUR. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MOHD ABDUL QUAYUM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
BOYA PEDDA THAYANNA S/O MADIKALA HANUMANTHA AGE 51 YEARS,OCC. AGRIL.,
2. HARIKRISHNA S/O BOYA PEDDA THAYANNA AGE 24 YEARS, OCC. AGRIL.,
3. BOYA VIRESHAMMA D/O BOYA PEDDA THAYANNA AGE 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD ALL R/O.H NO 1-75 KUTKANOOR VILLAGE IEEJA MANADALA, DIST.MEHABOOBNAGARA NOW R/O. HANCHINAL VILLAGE TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584128. 4. RAVIKUMAR S/O. ESANNA AGE MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF BOLERO BEARING No.KA-36/A-9281 R/O THALAMARI VILLAGE TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584140. …RESPONDENTS
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
(BY SMT. PATIL SHANTABAI SUBHASH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
V/O. DATED 10.07.2025, NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.468/2023 BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR. B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.03.2025 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.468/2023 BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR EXONERATING THE LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT.C) PASS ANY SUCH ORDER THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA No.202091/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. BOYA PEDDA THAYANNA S/O MADIKALA HANUMANTHA AGE 51 YRS, OCC. AGRIL.,
2. HARIKRISHNA S/O BOYA PEDDA THAYANNA AGE 24 YRS, OCC. AGRIL,
3. BOYA VIRESHAMMA D/O BOYA PEDDA THAYANNA AGE 22 YRS, OCC HOUSEHOLD,
ALL ARE R/O. H.NO.1-75, KUTKNOOR VILLAGE, IEEJA MANDALA, DIST. MEHABOOBNAGARA, NOW R/O. HANCHINAL VILLAGE TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101. …APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.PATIL SHANTABAI SUBHASH, ADVOCATE)
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
AND:
1. RAVIKUMAR S/O ESANNA AGE MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF BOLERO BEARING NO.KA-36/A-9281, R/O. THALAMARI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584101. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DOOR NO.12-10-89/1, 1ST FLOOR, ANAGA COMPLEX, NEAR MALESHWARA CHOWK, RAICHUR-584101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHD. ABDUL QUAYUM, ADV.
FOR R2;
V/O. DATED 29.07.2025,NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR TRIAL COURT RECORDS AND PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.03.2025, PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR, IN MVC NO.468/2023 AND PLEASED TO ENHANCE COMPENSATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IN MFA CROB. NO. 200032/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. B SUJATHA W/O LATE MALLIKARJUNA AGE 23 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
2. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O BOYA GUDSI HANUMANTHA @ HANUMANTHU, D/O MUNINTI LINGANNA, AGE 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
3. BOYA GUDSI HANUMANTHU S/O CHINNA YENKANNA, AGE 56 YEARS, OCC.AGRIL., ALL ARE R/O HOUSE NO.1-74, KUTKANOOR VILLAGE, LEEJA MANDALA, DIST. MEHABOOBNAGAR, NOW RESIDING AT HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584101. …CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SMT. PATIL SHANTABAI SUBHASH,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAVIKUMAR S/O ESANNA AGE MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF BOLERO BRG. NO.KA-36/A-9281, R/O THALAMARI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584101. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DOOR NO.12-10-89/1, 1ST FLOOR, ANAGA COMPLE, NEAR MALESHWARA CHOWK, RAICHUR-584101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHD. ABDUL QUAYUM, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O. DATED 09.08.2025, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CROB-OBJECTION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.03.2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR IN MVC NO.467/2023 AND PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)
In MFA No.202048/2025 and MFA Crob No.200032/2025 The MFA No.202048/2025 is by the Insurance Company and MFA Crob.No.200032/2025 is by the claimants calling in question the judgment and award dated 12.03.2025 in MVC No.467/2023 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & MACT, Raichur. The appeal by the insurance company is calling in question the liability to pay the compensation and the cross objection is for enhancement of compensation. 2. The date of accident involvement of vehicle and the death of Mallikarjuna is not in dispute. The dispute is only with respect to the liability by the insurance company so far as fastening contributory negligence on the rider of the motorcycle, who rode it under the influence of alcohol
- 8 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
without holding any driving licence. The cross objection is in respect of adequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Heard Sri Mohammed Abdul Quayyum, learned counsel appearing for appellant in MFA No.202048/2025 and Smt. Patil Shantabai Subash, learned counsel appearing for claimants / cross objector in MFA Crob No.200032/2025. 4. Sri Mohammed Abdul Quayyum, taking us through the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the rider of the motorcycle contributed to the accident, while answering Issue No.1. The rider of the motorcycle was not possessing licence. As such, the Tribunal ought to have held that he has no knowledge of riding motorcycle and fastened the contributed negligence to the extent of 50% at least on the rider of the motorcycle. Accordingly, sought to allow
- 9 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
the appeal and fasten contributory negligence of 50% on the rider of the motorcycle. 5. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company. Smt. Patil Shantabhai Subhash, the learned counsel appearing for the cross objectors in MFA Crob.
No.200032/2025 with all vehemence submitted that the police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the insured vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 279, 304-A of IPC R/w Section 187 of M.V.Act. The insurer has not placed any evidence in order to show the rashness and negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal after referring to the entire material on record, i.e., the police papers, has come to a conclusion that it is the driver of the insured vehicle is responsible for the accident. Though, the insurance company has taken a contention that the driver of the offending vehicle was as under the influence of intoxication while riding the motorcycle. However, the same is not proved by leading any cogent evidence. The
- 10 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
Tribunal, as per the FSL report at Ex.R7 while answering the contention of the insurance company at paragraph No.39 has clearly held that even though in Ex.R7 the alcohol percentage found in the blood of rider was to the extent of 27.92 mg per 100 ml. As per Section 185 of M.V.Act, a person who drives the vehicle has in his blood, alcohol concentration exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml is liable to be charged under the said provision. As the document Ex.R7 itself speaks that the alcohol concentration found in the blood of the rider of the motorcycle is only 27.92 mg per 100 ml. The same cannot be taken to come to a conclusion that the rider was under the influence of alcohol. Since the provision itself provides the limit of alcohol concentration in the blood to the extent of 30 mg. per 100 ml.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal, after going through the entire papers, held that it is the driver of the insured is responsible for the rash and negligent driving which had claimed two lives i.e., rider as well as pillion, filed charge sheet against him. The Tribunal having
- 11 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
considered the record before it has properly answered issue No.1 against the driver of the insured vehicle and held that insurer is liable to pay the compensation, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 6. So far as compensation is concerned, Smt. Patil, with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal has not properly considered the income to assess the loss of dependency as well as not awarded any appropriate compensation under the conventional head, which requires enhancement. With this she submits that the appeal filed by the insurance company be dismissed and the cross objection filed by the claimants be allowed in enhancing compensation. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused entire appeal papers and trial Court record. - 12 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
8. The points that arise for our consideration are as follows. i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in answering issue No.1 holding that the driver of the insured vehicle alone is responsible for rash and negligent driving and cause for the accident. ii) Whether the tribunal is justified in awarding the compensation? 9. Our answer to the above points for
consideration is:
Point No.1 : In the affirmative. Point No.2 : In the affirmative for the
following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1: Though, the appellant/insurance company has taken a contention that the rider of the motorcycle was under the influence of alcohol and without driving licence rode the same on the public road
- 13 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
endangering the life of the pillion rider as well as himself, so also other public i.e., road users. The FSL Report, at Ex-R7 produced by the insurer shows that the alcohol concentration found in the blood of deceased rider was 27.92 mg per 100 ml. Section 185 of the M.V.Act clearly prescribes, that the person to be prosecuted under the said provision, the alcohol concentration found in the blood must be exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml, answers the contention of the learned counsel for insurance company. In these circumstances, the contention of riding under the influence of intoxication / alcohol does not hold any water. So far as other contention regarding the rider of the motorcycle was not holding licence as such he has contributed to the negligence resulting in accident is concerened. It is trite that mere not holding licence cannot be presumed that the rider/driver is responsible for the accident or for rash and negligent driving or riding, in the absence of any rashness and negligence found or placed
- 14 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
against the rider/driver of the offending vehicle. The mere absence of driving licence cannot be a ground to fasten contributory negligence on the said person. The insurance company though examined its officer, but he has spoken only on the basis of the police records. There is no contra evidence placed to show that it is the rider of the motorcycle who has rode the motorcycle in rash and negligently and responsible for the accident as such contributed to the same. In the absence of any cogent evidence, it becomes very hard for us to hold that the rider of the motorcycle as contributed to the accident. 11.
Point No.2: So far as enhancement of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken appropriate income as well as multiplier and adding appropriate future prospectus awarded compensation under all heads including loss of dependency as well as conventional heads, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly the
- 15 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
points for consideration stated supra are answered in affirmative. 12. For the following reasons, we proceeded to pass the following:
ORDER i) Both the appeal as well as Cross objection filed by the insurer and claimants are dismissed. ii) The amount in deposit in appeal No.202048/2025 be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. iii) The appellant-insurance company shall deposit balance compensation along with the accrued interest awarded by the Tribunal, before the concerned Tribunal within 6 weeks from the date of issuance of copy of this order. iv) All other direction of the tribunal remain unaltered.
- 16 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
v) No order as to cost.
In MFA No.202046/2025 and MFA No.202091/2025 These two appeals being MFA No.202046/2025 and MFA No.202091/2025 are by insurer as well as claimants calling in question the judgment and award dated 12.03.2025 in MVC No.468/2023, in MVC No.467/2023 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & MACT, Raichur. The by the Insurer calling in question the liability and by the claimants on the enhancement.
2. The date of accident involvement of vehicle, death of Yankamma are not in dispute. The only dispute is as per the appellant-insurance company, the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and as per the claimants for inadequate compensation.
3. Heard Sri. Mohammed Abdul Quayum, learned counsel appearing for appellant-insurance company in MFA No.202046/2025 and Smt. Patil Shantabai Subash,
- 17 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
learned counsel appearing for appellant in MFA No.202091/2025.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are as follows. i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in answering issue No.1 holding that the driver of the insured vehicle alone is responsible for rash and negligent driving and cause for the accident. ii) Whether the tribunal is justified in awarding the compensation?
5. Our answer to the above points for
consideration is : Point No.1: In affirmative. Point No.2: Partly in affirmative for the following: REASONS
6. Point No.1: Though, the appellant/insurance company has taken a contention that the rider of the motorcycle was under the influence of alcohol and without
- 18 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
driving licence rode the same on the public road endangering the life of the pillion rider as well as himself, so also other public i.e., road users. The FSL Report, at Ex-R7 produced by the insurer shows that the alcohol concentration found in the blood of deceased rider was 27.92 mg per 100 ml. Section 185 of the M.V.Act clearly prescribes, that the person to be prosecuted under the said provision, the alcohol concentration found in the blood must be exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml, answers the contention of the learned counsel for insurance company. In these circumstances, the contention of riding under the influence of intoxication / alcohol does not hold any water. So far as other contention regarding the rider of the motorcycle was not holding licence as such he has contributed to the negligence resulting in accident is concerened. It is trite that mere not holding licence cannot be presumed that the rider/driver is responsible for the accident or for rash and negligent driving or riding, in the
- 19 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
absence of any rashness and negligence found or placed against the rider/driver of the offending vehicle. The mere absence of driving licence cannot be a ground to fasten contributory negligence on the said person. The insurance company though examined its officer, but he has spoken only on the basis of the police records. There is no contra evidence placed to show that it is the rider of the motorcycle who has rode the motorcycle in rash and negligently and responsible for the accident as such contributed to the same. In the absence of any cogent evidence, it becomes very hard for us to hold that the rider of the motorcycle as contributed to the accident. 7.
Point No.2: So far as enhancement of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,36,112/- compensation for the death of Smt. Yankamma. We found force in the argument advanced by
learned counsel appearing for claimants that the Tribunal has failed to add appropriate future prospectus. Though has taken the income at Rs.15,250/- as per the chart
- 20 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
prepared by the Legal Service Authority so also the compensation awarded under conventional heads are meager.
8. In view of the difference of income and inadequate compensation under the conventional head, the same requires re-determination and reconsideration.
9. On re-determination, the compensation comes to: Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of dependency (15,250 + 25% (3812.5) = 19,062.5 – 1/3 (6354) = 12,708.5 x 12x 14 = 21.35,028/-) Rs.21,35,028/-
2. Towards transportation charges Rs.20,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
4. Towards funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
5. Towards consortium (Spousal consortium + filial consortium) Rs.1,44,000/-
Total Less Awarded amount Rs.23,35,028/- Rs.10,36,112/-
Enhanced amount Rs.12,98,916/-
- 21 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
10. Accordingly, the appellants / claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.23,35,028/- which is rounded off to Rs.23,35,100/- as against Rs.10,36,112/-.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the points for
consideration are answered accordingly and we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i) The appeal filed by the insurance company is hereby dismissed. ii) The appeal filed by the claimants/ appellants in MFA No. 202091/2025 is hereby allowed in part. iii) Enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,36,112/-to Rs.23,35,100/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realisation. iv) The amount in deposit by the appellant- insurance company in MFA
- 22 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4777-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 202046 of 2025 MFA No. 202091 of 2025 MFA Crob. No.200032 of 2025
No.202046/2025 be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. v) The appellant-insurance company in MFA 202046/2025 and respondent in MFA No.202091/2025 shall deposit the balance re-determined compensation along with the accrued interest stated supra before the concerned Tribunal within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. vi) All other directions by the Tribunal are unaltered. vii) No orders as to costs.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13/CT:JLR