- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22737 MFA No. 2270 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 119 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MFA NO. 2270 OF 2013 (MV) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 119 OF 2018 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 2270/2013: BETWEEN: M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025. REPRESENTED BY ITS, REGIONAL MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B S UMESH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. S N LAKSHMI, W/O LATE SRINIVASA MURTHY @ VASU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 2. MASTER T.S.PAVAN KUMAR, S/O LATE SRINIVASA MURTHY @ VASU, AGED ABOUT 5.5 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN AND HIS MOTHER S.N.LAKSHMI, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT THERANAHALLI VILLAGE, VELAGALABURRE POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT -563 126. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22737 MFA No. 2270 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 119 of 2018 3. SMT.KAMAKASHAMAMMA, W/O LATE R.M.NARAYANA REDDY, AGE MAJOR EXACT NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT RESIDING AT NO.12, MYLASANDRA, BEGUR POST, BANGALORE-560 068. 4. SRI.VENKATACHALAPATHI S.N. S/O V.NARAYANASWAMY, AGE MAJOR EXACT NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT RESIDING AT SREESANDRA VILLAGE, KEMBODI POST-563 101. KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N GOPALKRISHNA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED (R2 IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY R1)) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6143/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION Rs.7,25,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITON TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT. IN MFA.CROB NO. 119/2018: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. S N LAKSHMI W/O LATE SRINIVASA MUURTHY @ VASU, NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2. MASTER T S PAVAN KUMAR S/O LATE SRINIVASA MURTHY @ VASU, AGED ABOUT 10.5 YEARS, MINOR REP BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER IST CROSS OBJECTOR HEREIN, BOTH ARE R/AT THERANAHALLI VILLAGE, VELAGALABURRE POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. ...CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N.,ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22737 MFA No. 2270 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 119 of 2018 AND: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025. REP BY ITS MANAGER. 2. SMT. KAMAKSHAMMA, W/O LATE R M NARAYANA REDDY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.12, MYLASANDRA, BEGUR POST, BANGALORE-560 068. 3. SRI VENKATACHALAPATHI S N S/O V NARAYANASWAMY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT SREESANDRA VILLAGE, KEMBODI POST-563 101. KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B S UMESH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; V.C.O DATED 14.07.2021 NO NEED TO ISSUE NOTICE TO R2 & R3) THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.2270/2013 PASSED U/O.41 RULE 22(1) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.11.2012 PASSED ON MVC NO.6143/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, 8TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MFA AND THIS MFA CROB, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22737 MFA No. 2270 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 119 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved with the award passed in MVC No.6143/2011 dated 07.11.2012 passed by the V Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City & MACT, the claimants have filed MFA CROB.No. 119/2018 seeking enhancement of the compensation and the Insurance Company has filed MFA.No.2270/2013. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 15.07.2011 at about 05.30 p.m. deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on TVS motorcycle. At that time, a Maruthi Suzuki car came from the same direction in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner went to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the TVS Motorcycle. Due to the impact of the said accident, the deceased, who was the pillion rider on the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Accordingly, the police have filed a charge sheet against the driver of the car. The Tribunal by order impugned has held that the accident had taken place because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the car as well as the driver of the moped and fixed liability on both the vehicles at 40% and 60%. When it comes to the compensation, Tribunal has considered the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22737 MFA No. 2270 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 119 of 2018 income at Rs.5,000/- and awarded the compensation as per the table given below: Sl. No Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Loss of dependency Rs.6,80,000/- 2. Loss of Expectancy Rs.10,000/- 3. Transportation of dead body Rs.10,000/- 4. Funeral and Obsequies Rs.10,000/- 5. Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- 6. Loss of Consortium R.10,000/- Total Rs.7,25,000/- 3. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that, the Tribunal has fixed the liability on the two wheeler when there is no other evidence or even the police evidence. All other evidence points out at the negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Car. It is submitted that the such a finding is more on assumptions and presumptions and there is no fault on the rider of the TVS Moped. It is submitted that as there is no negligence on the part of the TVS Moped, the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. Though notice is served on the respondent- owner of the vehicle, there is no representation on the owner of the car. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22737 MFA No. 2270 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 119 of 2018 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Tribunal considering the evidence of the driver of the Maruthi car and the manner in which the accident has taken place had rightly fixed the composite negligence on both the vehicles. It is submitted that no other evidence is adduced by the driver or the insurer of the TVS Moped to show that there is no negligence on the part of the TVS Moped. It is submitted that the Tribunal had rightly fixed the liability on the owner of the TVS Moped and Car. Then coming to the compensation, it is submitted that this accident has taken place in the year 2011 and the Tribunal had taken the income at Rs.5,000/- but ought to have taken the income at Rs.6,500/- and on this account the compensation needs to be enhanced. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The first contention is with regard to the liability. It is case of the claimant that while the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on a TVS Moped, the Maruthi Car came from behind and hit the TVS Moped. There is no other evidence except the evidence of the driver of the car that there is negligence on the part of the rider of the TVS Moped. Even the police records are pointing out at the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22737 MFA No. 2270 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 119 of 2018 negligence of the driver of the Maruthi Car. This court has perused the findings of the Tribunal, where it is observed that the police documents show that the car driver is charge- sheeted. But the driver has appeared before the court as RW-2 and he has deposed that on the date of accident the rider of the TVS Moped came from a village road to join the main road without observing his car. Thereby he has contributed to the accident. The Tribunal has further observed that the Maruthi car was proceeding on a national highway. The sketch goes to show that towards the southern side of the road near accident spot there is a land of Ramesh and Babu Raju and even there is an entrance to the village near the accident place. The probability in the contention of the driver of the car cannot be ruled out. On the date of the accident, the rider of the TV Moped would have joined the main road from the village entrance without observing the car coming from the eastern side on highway. No doubt there is a negligence on the part of the car driver because when there is a village entrance the driver of the car ought to have been more cautious while driving his vehicle. This court has perused the charge sheet, the sketch and all the findings of the Tribunal are more on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22737 MFA No. 2270 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 119 of 2018 assumptions and presumptions. The Tribunal cannot give a finding stating that the rider of the TVS Moped would have been cautious at time of joining the road from the village entrance. When the other records are contrary to the same in that view of the matter, the finding of the tribunal that there is a composite negligence on the part of the driver of the TVS Moped cannot be sustained and this court is of the view that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the car. The car is not insured. Hence the liability is on the owner of the Maruthi Car. 7. Then coming to the compensation, as this is an accident of 2011, the income has to be taken at Rs.6,500/-. Deceased was aged about 30 years. Taking future prospects at 40% it will come to Rs.2,600/-. Then the income of the deceased is Rs.9,100/- (Rs.6,500/- + Rs.2,600/-). As there are two dependants, 1/3rd is deducted towards the personal expenses i.e. Rs.3,033/- and his contribution to the family would be Rs.6,066/- (Rs.9,100 – Rs.3,033). Under the head of Loss of Dependency this court is granting an amount of Rs.12,37,464/-(Rs.6066 x 12 x 17). Towards loss of consortium this Court is granting an amount of Rs.96,000/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22737 MFA No. 2270 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 119 of 2018 (Rs.48,000x2). Towards Funeral expenses this Court is granting an amount of Rs.36,000/-. 8. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and Another1 , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. 9. The claimant is therefore, entitled for compensation under the following heads: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Loss of dependency Rs. Rs.6,80,000/- 12,37,464/- 2. Funeral expenses Rs. Rs.10,000/- 36,000/- 3. Loss of consortium (two dependants) Rs. Rs.10,000/- 96,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs. Rs.5,000/ - 00/- 5. Loss of Expectancy Rs. 10,000/- 00/- 6. Transportation of dead body Rs. 10,000/- 00/- 5. Legal Expenses Rs. 00/- 10,000/- TOTAL Rs. 7,25,000/- 13,79,464/- 1(2014) 11 SCC 178 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22737 MFA No. 2270 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 119 of 2018 10. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.13,79,464/-. i. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company MFA.No.2270/2013 is allowed. ii. MFA.CROB.No.119/2018 filed by the claimant is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.7,25,000/- to Rs.13,79,464/- and the said amount shall be paid by the owner of the Car. iii. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. iv. The respondent – owner of the Car shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount as per the award. v. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the tribunal. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22737 MFA No. 2270 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 119 of 2018 vi. The delay of 1443 days is condoned as per the order dated 08.02.2022 and the claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period. vii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay viii. No costs. ix. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4