- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010493432013 NC: 2026:KHC:45808 MFA No. 10450 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10450 OF 2013 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. V MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, 2. CHALLAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O V. MUNISWAMY, BOTH ARE R/AT MALAKALAPELLE VAANADU VILLAGE, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTUR DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DIRECTOR M/S. SUDHIR CRANES, R/AT NO.101, REGENCY ENCLAVE 04, MAGARATH ROAD, BANGALORE-25. 2. G.R. SHASHI KUMAR S/O T. RAMAIAH, R/T NO.229, 5TH CROSS, NAGARABHAVI 1ST STAGE, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010493432013 NC: 2026:KHC:45808 MFA No. 10450 of 2013 3. KALYANA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 023. THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE-4, NO.40, 2ND FLOOR, JYOTHI MAHAL, ST. MARKS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. (INSURER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.KA-03-C-2444) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R3, V/O DTD:20/06/2017 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 & R2 H/S) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 3.8.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.6680/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.08.2026 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 During the pendency of this proceeding, appellant- claimants filed I.A No.1 of 2021 dated 02.12.2021 for impleading the insurer of the tipper lorry as mentioned in the petition. This court finds it reasonable to dispose of the I.A. along with the main appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010493432013 NC: 2026:KHC:45808 MFA No. 10450 of 2013 2. The claimants stated that their son met with an accident and died while he was proceeding on a motorcycle as a pillion rider due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry. Initially, they came to know that lorry was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No.421400/31/2010/1149 and it was valid from 09.05.2009 to 08.05.2010. Their son met with an accident on 12.03.2010 and the policy was in existence as on the date of accident. They also enclosed the copy of the policy and it is in the name of respondent No.2. Thus, they filed an application to implead him. But in the objection filed by the insurance company, they stated that he was not a party before the tribunal. As such, Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on merits. It is stated that accident occurred in the year 2010 and they filed this application after lapse of 15 years. If he is impleaded, it will cause great injury to the insurance company. Therefore, requested the court to dismiss the application. 3. The claimants herein are the parents of a deceased, aged 22 years, who met with an accident way back in the year - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010493432013 NC: 2026:KHC:45808 MFA No. 10450 of 2013 2010. They initially, filed case against respondent No.1, who was owner of the vehicle and on his information, they included respondent No.2 as owner. But, respondent No.2 has not turned up even after service of the notice. The Tribunal dismissed application and later, they got the details of the policy existing as on the date of accident and filed an application on 02.12.2021 for including the Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as proper and necessary party. Statement of objections is filed on 16.03.2026, i.e. after 5 years and not disputed the policy. Admittedly, the cases filed under Motor Vehicles Act are to be dealt with in a lenient manner as it is a beneficial legislation and therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to allow the application and to implead the insurance company as respondent No.3 in this case. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2021 is allowed. Claimants are permitted to make amendment to that effect. 4. As this case is pertaining to 2010, this Court finds that it is not just and reasonable to remand the matter to the Tribunal after 15 years, and thus, proceeded to decide the issue on merits. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010493432013 NC: 2026:KHC:45808 MFA No. 10450 of 2013 5. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 03.08.2013 passed in MVC No.6680 of 2010 by the Member, MAC, IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City. One Govinda, met with an accident on 12.03.2010 and died subsequently. His parents filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition on two grounds. It is stated that the name of deceased was shown as Govinda in the police records and in Exhibit P8, his name is shown as Govinda Raju. But nowhere it is stated that he is Govinda alias Govinda Raju. As such, claimant failed to prove that he is their son. It is further stated that the claimants have not filed any documents to show that respondent No.2 was the RC owner of the vehicle and ‘B’ register extract produced by respondent No.1 does not reveal that respondent No.2 was the RC owner of the offending vehicle and accordingly dismissed the application. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010493432013 NC: 2026:KHC:45808 MFA No. 10450 of 2013 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed this appeal and mainly contended that they filed exhibit P8- household card issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh and it clearly shows that deceased was their son. The Tribunal without considering the same dismissed the application. In inquest Mahazar, brother of the deceased stated that deceased was the son of the claimants. They filed the application under Section 163-A of the Act, and as such, the question of negligence does not arise. But, the Tribunal wrongfully fixed contributory negligence of 25% on the part of the deceased and no amounts are granted under any heads. Therefore requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 7. Heard the argument of learned counsel for both sides. 8. Initially, the claimants filed claim petition against respondent No.1. He appeared before the court after receiving the notice and filed written statement stating that he is not RC owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-03-C-2444 as on the date of accident. He obtained clearance certificate and transferred it to one Shashikumar and it is also under hire purchase - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010493432013 NC: 2026:KHC:45808 MFA No. 10450 of 2013 agreement with M/s. Seetha Finance. As such, they impleaded him as R2 and also served notice. But he failed to appear before the court even after service of the notice and remained ex-parte. 9. Admittedly, the name of the deceased was shown as Govinda in FIR, inquest mahazar and PM report, but the claimants herein filed Exhibit P8-household card issued by District Administration of Chittor, Andhra Pradesh, to show that deceased was their son. PW1, father of the deceased, was examined before the court. But, he was not cross examined by respondents and as such, his evidence in the chief examination remains unchallenged. In the chief affidavit, P.W.1 has clearly stated that deceased was his son and in support of the said statement, he filed Exhibit P8 which clearly shows that he is having 4 male children namely, Muniraja, Narayana, Govindaraju and Venkateshu. The Tribunal observed that, during the inquest, the names were not mentioned by the investigation officer. But, considering the evidence of PW1 before the Court coupled with Exhibit P8, this Court finds that the claimants are the parents of the deceased. The proceedings - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010493432013 NC: 2026:KHC:45808 MFA No. 10450 of 2013 under Motor Vehicles Act are to be dealt with in a summary procedure and the strict proof of evidence is not required as in criminal cases. 10. As the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of MV Act and Govinda (deceased) was aged 22 years at the time of the accident in the year 2010, his income was shown as Rs.40,000/- per annum and the applicable multiplier is ‘17’. Therefore, as per the second schedule of MV Act, 1988, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,53,333/- and the claimants are also entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,57,833/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 11. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.4,57,833/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010493432013 NC: 2026:KHC:45808 MFA No. 10450 of 2013 (iii) The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, the Claimants are permitted to withdraw entire amount along with interest accrued on it, equally. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62