- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164002020 NC: 2026:KHC:40447 MFA No. 3816 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 148 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3816 OF 2020(MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 148 OF 2023 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 3816/2020 BETWEEN: CHOLAMANDALAM MS GIC LTD., UNIT NO. 4, 9TH FLOOR, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 59TH C-CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 10, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MURALIDHARA N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K AMBIKA W/O LATE N.V SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 2. KUM. POORVI D/O LATE N.V SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, 3. SRI. VENKATARAYAPPA S/O. LATE. PEDDA MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164002020 NC: 2026:KHC:40447 MFA No. 3816 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 148 of 2023 4. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O. VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR HENCE REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER BEING NATURAL GUARDIAN ALL ARE RESIDING AT PICHALAGADDA VILLAGE, THADIGOLU POST, RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135 5. A LOKESH S/O. RP ANAND, MAJOR IN AGE RONUR VILLAGE AND POST, SRINIVASPUR TULUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135 KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R4(R2 MINOR REP. BY R1) VIDE ORDER DATED 21/11/2025 LR'S OF R3 ALREADY ON RECORS) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.08.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.6411/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-18), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,96,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 8 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164002020 NC: 2026:KHC:40447 MFA No. 3816 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 148 of 2023 IN MFA.CROB NO. 148/2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT K AMBIKA W/O LATE N.V SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. KUM POORVI D/O LATE N.V SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS 3. SMT PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE VENAKTARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS THE APPELLANT NO.2 SINCE MINOR BEING REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1 SMT. K. AMBIKA ALL ARE R/AT PICHALAGADDA VILLAGE THADIGOLU POST, RONUR HOBLI SRINIVASAPUR TQ, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135 NOTE: THE PETITIONER NO.3 SRI. VENKATARAYAPPA DIED SUBSEQUENT TO JUDGEMENT ON 18-07-2021 LEAVING BEHIND HIM THE APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 AS HIS SOLE LEGAL HEIRS HENCE, HE IS NOT MADE AS PARTY IN THE APPEAL ...CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. MURALIDHARA N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI A LOKESH S/O R.P ANAND - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164002020 NC: 2026:KHC:40447 MFA No. 3816 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 148 of 2023 MAJOR IN AGE R/AT RONUR VILLAGE AND POST SRINIVASAPUR TQ KOLAR DISTRICT PIN CODE - 563 135 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MS GIC LTD UNIT NO 4, 9TH FLOOR LEVEL-D6 "GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX" 59TH C CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 10 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R4 ( R2 MINOR REP. BY R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 21/11/2025 LR'S OF R3 ALREADY ON RECORD) THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 R/W SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC.NO.6411/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. While MFA.No.3816/2020 is by the insurer challenging saddling of liability on the insurer as well as on the quantum of - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164002020 NC: 2026:KHC:40447 MFA No. 3816 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 148 of 2023 compensation, MFA.Crob.No.148/2023 is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide judgment and award dated 08.01.2020 passed in MVC.No.6411/2018. 2. The occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 22.07.2018 at about 03.00 p.m. when deceased N.V.Srinivasa while proceeding in his moped bearing registration No.KA-07 Y 3815 from Kurumakanahalli towards Srinivasapura-Manadanappali Road, the driver of the MGV tempo bearing registration No.KA- 07 A 4892, drove the same from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the moped, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. As such, the legal heirs of N.V.Srinivasa filed MVC.No.6411 /2018 claiming compensation for his accidental death. 4. The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, both oral and documentary, has awarded the following sums as compensation: - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164002020 NC: 2026:KHC:40447 MFA No. 3816 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 148 of 2023 Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 16,06,500 2. Loss of Consortium 1,60,000 3. Loss of estate 15,000 4. Transportation of dead body, funeral and ceremony expenses 15,000 Total 17,96,500 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, both the insurer and the claimants are in appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the insurer would contend that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the entire liability to make good the compensation on the insurer although the deceased was negligent in riding the motorcycle and thus, contributed to the accident and further, the deceased had no valid driving license as on the date of the accident. He would also contend that the Tribunal has erred in awarding exorbitant compensation under all the heads and also awarding 8% interest p.a. on the compensation amount. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164002020 NC: 2026:KHC:40447 MFA No. 3816 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 148 of 2023 appeal of the insurer by dismissing the cross objection filed by the claimants. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal has rightly saddled liability on the insurance company to make good the compensation as the offending vehicle is covered with insurance policy and that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence. According to her, mere non-possessing of valid driving licence by the deceased as on the date of accident cannot be termed as negligence. She would further contend that the Tribunal has erred in awarding meager compensation under all the heads without properly assessing the income and avocation of the deceased. Accordingly, she would pray for allowing of cross objection filed by the claimants by enhancing the compensation and by dismissing the appeal of the insurer. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the insurer and the learned counsel for the claimants. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164002020 NC: 2026:KHC:40447 MFA No. 3816 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 148 of 2023 10. As could be gathered from records, the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident. However, it is contention of the insurer that the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the deceased had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident as the claimants have not produced the same and as such, contributory negligence has to be attributed for occurrence of the accident on the deceased. Mere non-possessing of valid driving licence by the deceased as on the date of accident cannot be termed as negligence on the part of the deceased for occurrence of the accident. The Division Bench of this Court in MFA.No.200517/2019 disposed of on 19.09.2023 in the case of Shivamma & Others Vs. Sri Govindu Malothu & Another, referring to the observations made in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SUDHIR KUMAR RANA VS. SURINDER SINGH & OTHERS - (2008) 12 SCC 436 at paragraphs 6 and 9, has held that though driving a vehicle without a licence is an offence, but the same, by itself, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. Paragraphs 6 and 9 of the said judgment reads as under: - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164002020 NC: 2026:KHC:40447 MFA No. 3816 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 148 of 2023 "6. A contributory negligence may be defined as negligence in not avoiding the consequences arising from the negligence of some other person, when means and opportunity are afforded to do so. The question of contributory negligence would arise only when both the parties are found to be negligent. 9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence." 11. Thus, the contention of the insurer that since the deceased had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident, the deceased was negligent and had contributed to the occurrence of the accident is untenable and is accordingly rejected. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164002020 NC: 2026:KHC:40447 MFA No. 3816 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 148 of 2023 12. As regards compensation, in order to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.8,500/-. Since there is no credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2018, would be Rs.12,500/-. 13. Since the deceased was aged 38 years and was self employed, 40% requires to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, which would result in the income to be Rs.17,500/- (Rs.12,500 + 40%). 14. Since there are four dependents, 1/4th requires to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.13,125/- (Rs.17,500 - 1/4th). The income of the deceased for the purposes of determining the loss of dependency would thus be Rs.13,125/-. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164002020 NC: 2026:KHC:40447 MFA No. 3816 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 148 of 2023 15. As the deceased was aged 38 years as on the date of accident, a multiplier of '15' would have to be applied. 16. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.23,62,500/- (Rs.13,125 x 12 x 15) towards 'loss of future income' as against Rs.16,06,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. The claimants, being the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” i.e., in all Rs.1,93,600/- and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the “conventional heads”. 18. Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 23,62,500 2. Loss of Consortium 1,93,600 3. Conventional Heads 36,300 Total 25,92,400 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010164002020 NC: 2026:KHC:40447 MFA No. 3816 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 148 of 2023 19. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.25,92,400/- as against Rs.17,96,500/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum instead of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ms. Joyeeta Bose and others vs. Venkateshan V., and others in M.F.A.No.5896/2018. However, the claimants would not be entitled for interest for the delayed period. 20. The apportionment of compensation amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. 21. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal. 22. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurer and the cross objection of the claimants are allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27