- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010215202016 NC: 2026:KHC:40239 MFA No. 1313 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1313 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SOMLANAIAKA S/O. LATE SRI. SOMLANAIAKA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SMT. RUKMINI BAI W/O. SRI. SOMLANAIAKA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. SRI. MANJUNATHA NAYAK S/O. SRI. SOMLA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 4. SMT. TRIVENI D/O. SRI. SOMALANAIAKA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT HAMPASANDRA VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010215202016 NC: 2026:KHC:40239 MFA No. 1313 of 2016 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101. 5. SRI. S. SARAVANA KUMAR S/O. SRI. S. SUKUMAR, MAJOR, R/AT NO. J-13/5, 1ST CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D S SRIDHAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, V/O DTD:19.08.2019 NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 16.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1052/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, AT BANGALORE. AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,25,048/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 16.01.2016 passed in MVC No.1052 of 2014 by the Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru. One Venkatesh @ Venkatesh Naika, aged about 26 years, met with an accident on 31.08.2013 and died subsequently. His parents, brother and sister filed claim petition claiming compensation of - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010215202016 NC: 2026:KHC:40239 MFA No. 1313 of 2016 Rs.30,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.15,25,048/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal held that respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2-insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and directed respondent No.2-insurance company to deposit the amount. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., mainly contending that on 31.08.2013 at about 06.30 p.m., while Venkatesh @ Venkatesh Naika was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.02/HM- 3527, which belonged to Kapil Chits Co. Pvt. Ltd. on Gowribidnur-Madhugiri road near 220 KV-KEB residential houses, Gowribidnur Town, Chickaballapur District, a lorry bearing No.KA.01/C.1595 came from opposite direction with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of Venkatesh @ Venkatesh Naika and he died on the spot. The appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have observed that accident occurred only due to rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry and dismissed the petition - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010215202016 NC: 2026:KHC:40239 MFA No. 1313 of 2016 or it should have held that the deceased contributed more than 70% negligence. The Tribunal granted higher compensation towards loss of the dependency wrongly applying the multiplier as per the age of the deceased and not as per the age of the younger parent and also added 50% future prospects and wrongly taken the income as Rs.9,216/- per month which is on higher side. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 4. It is stated that Venkatesh @ Venkatesh Naika was working in Kapil Chits Co. Pvt. Ltd. on Gowribidnur and getting a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. Petitioners examined the legal officer of Kapil Chits Co. Pvt. Ltd. as P.W.2. Exhibit P20 is the ID card and the petitioners also filed pay slips and allowance statements for the month of June, July and August 2013 under Exhibits P21, P24 to P27. As per the evidence of PW2, he was getting a gross salary of Rs.9,216/- per month. The claimants produced muster roll, wage register, pay slips and allowance statements as per Exhibits P.22 to P.27. In the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010215202016 NC: 2026:KHC:40239 MFA No. 1313 of 2016 cross examination, it was stated that the appointment letter of the deceased was not produced, but P.W.2 stated that they pass a resolution whenever the person is appointed in their firm. He further stated that whenever the employee dies, there is no provision to provide death benefits. Venkatesh completed his bachelor degree. He was aged 26 years. Therefore, considering the age of employee, the Tribunal taken his income as Rs.9,216/- per month. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that Venkatesh was getting Rs.5,000/- per month by working in Kapil Chits Co. Pvt. Ltd. But the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.9,216/- per month. Venkatesh met with an accident on 31.08.2013 and the application is filed in the year 2014 and the employer has also produced the relevant registers apart from allowance statement and bank statement. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for insurance company regarding the income cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company stated that income is to be taken based on the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. But, the chart can be applied only in cases - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010215202016 NC: 2026:KHC:40239 MFA No. 1313 of 2016 where there is no income proof. In this case, the petitioners examined the employer and also filed the relevant documents and his educational qualifications under Exhibits P.15 to P.19. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects and taken his income as Rs.9,216/- and it needs no interference. 6. Venkatesh was aged 26 years as per Exhibit P.14 and the relevant multiplier is 17. As he was working in a private concern, he is entitled for 40% towards future prospects, but not 50% as taken by the tribunal. His parents and siblings filed claim petition. He was a bachelor at the time of the accident, and therefore, 50% is to deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,16,045/- (9216 + 40% x 12 x 17 – 50%). Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents and each of them are entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium and they are also entitled for Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are dependent on their father i.e. petitioner No.1, and not on the Venkatesh. As such, they are not entitled for any amount, total compensation is reduced to Rs.14,26,045/- with - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010215202016 NC: 2026:KHC:40239 MFA No. 1313 of 2016 interest at 6% per annum against the amount of Rs.15,25,058/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency 13,16,045/- 2. Loss of Consortium 80,000/- 3. Towards conventional heads 30,000/- Total 14,26,045/- 8. The manner of accident shows that, while Venkatesh along with his friend Nataraj K was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.02/HM-3527 belonging to the Kapil Chits Co. Pvt. Ltd, a lorry bearing registration No.KA.01/C.1595 came from opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. As a result, both of them fell down and sustained serious injuries. But Venkatesh succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Police filed charge sheet against the owner of the lorry under Exhibit P.9. The insurance company has taken the contention - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010215202016 NC: 2026:KHC:40239 MFA No. 1313 of 2016 regarding the negligence of the deceased. However, it was held by the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle has no valid driving licence and the Tribunal observed that police has not filed any charge sheet for an offence under Section 187 of the M.V. Act and therefore, it cannot be held that he has no driving licence. The Tribunal further held that as per Exhibit P3 sketch, IMV report and other relevant documents, there is involvement of two vehicles and the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly, held both owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. It is for the appellant-insurance company to take the plea of contributory negligence in the written statement at the earliest point of time, but it has failed to do so. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are able to pay the compensation, and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. 9. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) The appeal is allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010215202016 NC: 2026:KHC:40239 MFA No. 1313 of 2016 (ii) The claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.14,26,045/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against the amount of Rs.15,25,058/- awarded by the Tribunal. (iii) The appellant insurance company might have deposited 50% of compensation and therefore, they are directed to deposit balance amount with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, first and second petitioners, being the parents of the deceased, are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1