- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29912 MFA No. 7756 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7756 OF 2018(MV-D) BETWEEN: M/S. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER KOLAR, THE APPELLANT IS REP. HEREIN BY: THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIHARI NAIDU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMESH, SO LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. V. SRINIVAS, S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 3. V. KRISHNA, S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29912 MFA No. 7756 of 2018 4. VENKATASWAMY, S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 5. V. BABU, S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 6. V. UMASHANKAR, S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 7. MS. SUJATHA @ KALAVATHI, D/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 7 HEREIN RESIDING AT VIBHUTHIPURA (KEELUKOTE), ANTHARAGANGE ROAD, KOLAR TOWN. 8. SRI. SADDAM PASHA, S/O SULTHAN PASHA, MAJOR BY AGE, R/O NEAR TIPPU MASJID, SHAHEED NAGAR, KOLAR TOWN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7, R8 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.641/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, KOLAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,68,200/- WITH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29912 MFA No. 7756 of 2018 INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by Insurer, calling in question the Judgment and Award dated 25.01.2018 passed by the I Addl. District Judge & Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kolar1 in M.V.C.No.641/2014. 2. The Tribunal vide Judgment and award, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.5,68,200/- to claimants 1 to 7 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 1 The Tribunal, for short - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29912 MFA No. 7756 of 2018 4. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle and death of Mr.Venkataravanappa are not in dispute. The dispute is with regard to quantum as well as liability to pay compensation. 5. Heard, Sri.V.Shrihari Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurer and Sri.Gopalakrishna.N, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 7 – claimants. Respondent No.8 though served remained unrepresented. 6. Sri.V.Shrihari Naidu, learned counsel for the Insurer argued on several grounds: 6.1 Firstly, he submits that the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing valid and effective Driving License as on the date of accident, as such the Insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 6.2 Secondly, the Injuries suffered in the accident was just a fracture of femur and other injuries. The deceased died nearly after a month of the accident. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29912 MFA No. 7756 of 2018 There is no nexus between the injury and death, which would give a right to the claimants to seek compensation under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’. 6.3 Thirdly, the Post Mortem report marked as Ex.P9 shows that the death is due to pneumonia/ septicemia, however the Doctor who has issued the report has not been examined to corroborate the Post Mortem report. 6.4 Fourthly, the claimants are the children of the deceased who are major at the time of death of deceased. The Tribunal though has taken the income at Rs.5,000/- per month, considered the entire income for ‘Loss of Dependency’ without deducing income towards personal expenses in terms of settled position of law. 6.5 Learned counsel further submits that the claimants are all major sons and are not entitled for compensation under ‘Loss of Dependency’, at the most they are entitled for ‘Loss of Estate’ in view of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29912 MFA No. 7756 of 2018 the Judgment of this Court in A.MANAVALAGAN VS. A.KRISHNAMURTHY2 and sought to allow the appeal and dismiss the claim petition against the Insurer. 7. Per contra, Sri.Gopalakrishna.N, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the deceased was aged 64 years and was earning as a Coolie and was contributing the entire amount for the welfare of the family which includes security to family as well education to children and grandchildren. The income which the deceased used to earn is a loss to the entire family. One of the claimant was unmarried daughter at the time of death. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal having considered the entire case, awarded proper compensation. 7.1 Further, he submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income at Rs.8,500/- considering the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2014. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.5,000/- and 2 2005 ACJ 1992 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29912 MFA No. 7756 of 2018 considered ‘Loss of Dependency’ on the entire income, as such the compensation awarded does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 7.2 So far as the contention regarding Driving License is concerned, learned counsel submits that the Insurer has not led any evidence, either oral or documentary to prove its contention that the rider was not possessing valid and effective Driving License. He submits that even for the sake of arguments, if it was proved that the rider was not possessing valid and effective Driving License as on the date of accident, in view of settled position of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the Insurer is primarily liable to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the Insured. However, in the absence of any evidence, both oral as well as documentary, the Insurer is not entitled to seek that ground to stake a challenge to the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of liability. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29912 MFA No. 7756 of 2018 7.3 With regard to nexus of injury and death is concerned, Mr.Gopalakrishna.N, submits that the Post Mortem report produced, clearly indicates that the injury occurred due to accident led to infection, which in turn led to septicemia, which has caused pneumonia and death. There is no contra evidence produced by the Insurer to deny the Post Mortem report. Merely the doctor has not been examined let alone cannot be a ground to disbelieve the post mortem report which has been marked without any objection by the Insurer. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has considered the entire case on merit and awarded appropriate compensation, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court and sought to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, perused the entire appeal paper and the TCR. 9. This Court is of the considered opinion that though the Tribunal has considered the case with awarding - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29912 MFA No. 7756 of 2018 compensation under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’ on the point of the income is lost to the family, but it has failed to take into consideration the income at the relevant point of time and deducting towards personal expenses as all the children are major. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal ought to have considered income towards personal expenses. 10. Though this Court is of the opinion that there is force in the argument of Sri.Naidu, that the Tribunal ought to have considered the case in terms of law laid down by this Court in MANAVALAGAN’s case, but the fact remains that one of the claimant was unmarried daughter. It is the obligation of the father to perform the marriage of his daughter and to take care of her till her marriage by providing all social security. In that view of the matter, if 50% of income is deducted towards personal expenses, the same would meet the ends of justice. Further, in view of the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income fixed for the year 2014 is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29912 MFA No. 7756 of 2018 Rs.8,500/-. If the same is considered and 50% is deducted out of the same, it would come to Rs.4,250/- and the same is considered as loss of income to the family and the same requires to be multiplied for 12 months with proper multiplier, which is ‘7’. 11. So far as, nexus of death is concerned, in the teeth of Post Mortem report which clearly indicates that the death is due to infection resulting in Septicemia and Pneumonia, which has happened within a month of the accident, this Court finds force in the argument of Sri.Gopalakrishna.N, learned counsel appearing for the claimants with respect to nexus of injury and death. 12. It is no more res-integra, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PAPPU DEO YADAV VS. NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS3 that wherever there is claim petition by a third party for any violation of conditions of insurance policy with respect to 3 (2022) 13 SCC 790 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29912 MFA No. 7756 of 2018 driving license, in view of contract, Insurer is primarily liable to pay compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle even in the presence of evidence to that effect. However, there is no such evidence produced by the Insurer to substantiate its contention, as such the contention on Driving License is rejected. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires re-determination and reassessment, which is as follows: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs. By this Court In Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency 4,20,000-00 3,57,000-00 (8,500x12x7x50%) 2. Medical expenses 53,200-00 53,200-00 3. Loss of estate 15,000-00 15,000-00 4. Loss of consortium 40,000-00 40,000-00 5. Loss of love and affection 25,000-00 25,000-00 6. Funeral obsequies including transportation of the dead body 15,000-00 15,000-00 TOTAL Rs.5,68,200-00 Rs.5,05,200-00 13. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for reassessed compensation of Rs.5,05,200/-, rounded off at Rs.5,06,000/-, as against Rs.5,68,200/- as awarded by - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29912 MFA No. 7756 of 2018 the Tribunal, which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 14. 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 25.01.2018 passed by the I Addl. District Judge & Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kolar in M.V.C.No.641/2014 is modified and the compensation is reassessed. (iii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. (iv) The Claimants are entitled for reassessed compensation of Rs.5,06,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29912 MFA No. 7756 of 2018 (v) Appellant - Insurer shall deposit the balance reduced compensation along with interest supra before the concerned Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (vi) Upon deposit, 50% shall be released in favor of the claimant No.7 Ms.Sujatha @ Kalavathi, D/o Late Venkataravanappa and balance 50% shall be released in favor of other claimants equally on proper identification. (vii) The Trial Court Record secured if any, shall be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal. (viii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 ct-vn