- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523812017 NC: 2026:KHC:46800 MFA No. 4259 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5989 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4259 OF 2017 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5989 OF 2015 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 4259/2017 BETWEEN: 1. ANWAR SAB @ SYED ANWAR @ ANWAR S/O LATE DAUD SAB AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SMT. GULJIR BANU W/O ANWAR SAB @ SYED @ ANWAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. SYED NOOR AHAMMED S/O ANWAR SAB @ SYED @ ANWAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 4. SHAHEEDA BANU @SHAHEEDA BEGUM D/O ANWAR SAB @ SYED ANWAR @ ANWAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT D NO.152/2 12,13, 14TH CROSS AND FIRST MAIN AZAD NAGAR, DAVANAGERE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523812017 NC: 2026:KHC:46800 MFA No. 4259 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5989 of 2015 AND: 1. PRAKASH G R NITHYANANDA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY LTD. D NO.511-A(6), PUNARUR COMPLEX MULKY, MANGALORE D.K., PIN-575014. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. EMCA HOUSE, FIRST FLOOR 289, S B SINGH ROAD FORT MUMBAI PIN-40001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E I SANMATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 01.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1178/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT-II AND I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 5989/2015: BETWEEN: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR T.P. APPEALS HUB, NO.3, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR C R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ANWAR SAB @ SYED ANWAR @ ANWAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523812017 NC: 2026:KHC:46800 MFA No. 4259 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5989 of 2015 S/O LATE DAUD SAB, 2. SMT GULJAR BANU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O ANWAR SAB @ SYED ANWAR @ ANWAR, 3. SRI SYED NOOR AHAMED AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O ANWAR SAB @ SYED ANWAR @ ANWAR, 4. SMT SHAHEEDA BANU @ SHAHEEDA BEGUM AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O ANWAR SAB @ SYED ANWAR @ ANWAR, ALL ARE R/AT D.NO.152/2, 12, 13, 14TH CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD, AZAD NAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577 001. 5. SRI PRAKASH G R NITHYANANDA INFRASTURCTURE COMPANY LTD., D.NO.511-A(6), PUNARUR COMPLES, MULKY, MANGALORE-574 154. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, SRI. HAREESH., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 1.4.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1178/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-2, D.K., MANGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.9,40,000/-WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523812017 NC: 2026:KHC:46800 MFA No. 4259 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5989 of 2015 THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.08.2026 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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, D.K., Mangalore, passed an award in MVC No.1178 of 2012 dated 01.04.2015. One Sayyed Ali met with an accident on 10.09.2011 and died subsequently. His parents, brother and sister filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.9,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realisation. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, claimants preferred MFA No.4259 of 2017 for enhancement of the compensation and they stated that Sayyed Ali was aged 22 years. He was working as Engineer/Supervisor in Nithyananda Infrastructure and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Exhibits P21 to P26 are the salary slips. PW3 is the employer of Sayyed Ali. But the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.10,000/-, which is on lower - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523812017 NC: 2026:KHC:46800 MFA No. 4259 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5989 of 2015 side. The Tribunal has not granted future prospects and also erred in taking the age of the younger parent for selecting the multiplier. As he was a bachelor, his age is to be considered. The amount granted under the head of loss of dependency is to be enhanced and the amounts granted under other heads are also on lower side. Therefore, requested for enhancement of compensation. 3. Against the same award, MFA No.5989 of 2015 is filed by insurance company and they mainly contended that, on service of court notice, owner of the insured crane though entered appearance, has not filed written statement or not lead any evidence and not contested the case. Insurance company filed written statement. Father of the deceased was examined as PW1 and an eye witness was examined as PW2 and the employer of the deceased was examined as PW3. They filed exhibits P1 to P28. Insurance company examined their Administrative Officer as RW1 and produced exhibits R1 and R2. It is contented that the death of Sayyed Ali was as a result of falling of the iron rods and not by the insured crane. The policy issued by the insurance company is under Contractor's - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523812017 NC: 2026:KHC:46800 MFA No. 4259 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5989 of 2015 Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy and it does not cover the risk under Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the crane. But the Tribunal has given own assumed findings to fix the liability against them. It is contended that Sayyed Ali died due to the falling of iron rods on him when he was supervising the activity and no accident caused by the insured crane. Since no premium is paid to cover the risk of the deceased, the risk is not covered under the policy. Moreover, Sayyed Ali was not a permanent employee of the owner of the insured crane. He was working on contract basis and his employer PW3 confirmed the same. Therefore, a person working on contract basis cannot be treated as an employee under the owner of the crane. As such, they are not liable to pay the compensation. It is also contended that Tribunal has not considered the limitations and exclusions stipulated in the insurance policy and therein in fixed the liability against them. The award of the Tribunal is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the Tribunal. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523812017 NC: 2026:KHC:46800 MFA No. 4259 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5989 of 2015 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. The manner of accident as mentioned in the claim petition is that, on 10.09.2011 at about 08.15 p.m. at MRPL, third phase construction of Nithyananda infrastructure site, Sayyed Ali was supervising at the site. At that time, the driver of the crane bearing registration No.GJ.10/AF.3691 was unloading the iron rods from the lorry. Without taking any precautions, he was unloading the iron rods. At that time, the crane driver lost control and toppled and bundles of the iron rod fell on Sayyed Ali, who was standing on the site and he sustained grievous injuries and shifted to the hospital and succumbed to the injuries on the way. Case was registered against the driver of the crane in Crime No.195 of 2011 and charge sheet is also filed against him. 6. After the issuance of the notices, respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal appeared. Respondent No.1 did not file any objection statement. Respondent No.2 in its written statement contended that there was no negligence of the driver - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523812017 NC: 2026:KHC:46800 MFA No. 4259 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5989 of 2015 of the crane. He was operating the same slowly and carefully by following the rules and regulations of the road. They issued policy under Contractors' Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy. There is no coverage of insurance for the accident suffered by Sayyed Ali. Respondent No.1 has not taken insurance policy under Motor Vehicles Act to cover the risk of the deceased and crane is registered for private use only. As such, they are not liable to indemnify the owner. Therefore, requested the court to dismiss their petition. 7. Exhibit P2 is the complaint given by Naveen, who is an eye witness to the occurrence. Exhibit P3 is the spot mahazar. Exhibit P4 is the sketch. Exhibit P5 is accident information report. Exhibit P6 is IMV report. Exhibit P9 is the charge sheet. There is no dispute regarding the accident. Learned counsel for the insurance company argued that there is no negligence of the driver of the crane and while he was removing the iron rod bundles from the lorry, they fell on the deceased. Sayyed Ali was working as a supervisor and he was at the place of accident. When the driver of the crane was removing the iron bundles, they fell on him and died. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523812017 NC: 2026:KHC:46800 MFA No. 4259 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5989 of 2015 Therefore, the tribunal has rightly held that accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the crane. PW3 is employer and he stated that Sayyed Ali was working on contract basis and he was not a permanent employee under him. Exhibit P21 to Exhibit 26 are salary certificates and as per the said salary certificates, he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But the Tribunal held that no bank account was produced to substantiate the salary slips and no appointment order is also filed. PW3 stated as he is not a permanent employee, appointment order was not issued. 8. Sayyed Ali met with an accident on 10.09.2011 and the notional income as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is Rs.6,500/- per month. But considering the evidence of PW3 and also salary slips and the fact that he was working as a supervisor on contract basis, the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.10,000/-. But as the bank statement and appointment order is not filed, this Court finds it reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.6,500/- per month. Sayyed Ali was aged 23 years as per Exhibit P7 and the relevant multiplier is 18. He is further entitled for 40% towards - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523812017 NC: 2026:KHC:46800 MFA No. 4259 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5989 of 2015 future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1. As he was a bachelor, 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Thus, loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,82,800/- (6,500 + 40% x 12 x 18 - 50%) 9. Further, as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others3, and in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others4, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 being the parents of Sayyed Ali, 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 as per the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 (2020) 9 SCC 644 - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523812017 NC: 2026:KHC:46800 MFA No. 4259 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5989 of 2015 Vs. Pranay Sethi5. Petitioners 3 and 4 are children of PW1, who was working as an attender as per his evidence. Therefore, they are depending on PW1 but not on the deceased Sayyed Ali and they are not entitled for any compensation. The total compensation comes to Rs.10,92,800/-. 10. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.10,92,800/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.9,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency 9,82,800/- 2. Loss of Consortium 80,000/- 3. Towards conventional heads 30,000/- Total 10,92,800/- 12. The Tribunal discussed the conditions of the policy in detail and finally held that deceased was a third party and his liability is covered under Exhibit R1. But the main contention of 5 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523812017 NC: 2026:KHC:46800 MFA No. 4259 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5989 of 2015 the insurance company is that they issued policy under Contractors' Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy and it does not cover the risk under Motor Vehicles Act and no additional premium was paid to cover the risk of deceased, as such insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is a case of death occurred in the year 2011. The claimants are the aged parents and they filed claim petition in the year 2012, which was disposed of in the year 2015. The present appeal is filed in the year 2015, and now, we are in 2026. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to invoke the principle of pay and recovery, and insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.10,92,800/-. 13. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) MFA No.4259 of 2017 filed by claimants and MFA No.5989 of 2015 filed by insurance company are allowed in part. (ii) The claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.10,92,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523812017 NC: 2026:KHC:46800 MFA No. 4259 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5989 of 2015 (iii) The Insurance company might have deposited 50% of compensation and therefore directed to deposit the balance compensation amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, parents of the deceased are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest equally. (v) The insurance company is at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law. (vi) The amount in deposit by the insurance company is to be transferred to the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41