- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010426222022 NC: 2026:KHC:50030 MFA No. 6516 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3092 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6516 OF 2022(MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3092 OF 2019(MV-D) IN MFA No.6516/2022: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHWETHA K.M., W/O LATE MUNIRAJU L, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 2. KUM. SHOBHA M @ SHRUTHI, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU L, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS. 3. MASTER. AGASTHYA M., S/O LATE MUNIRAJU L, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS. 4. SMT. MANGAMMA @ MANJAMMA, W/O LAKSHMANA @ LAKSHMAIAH, @ VENKATARAMAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 5. SRI. LAKSHMANNA @ LAKSHMAIAH @ VENKATTRAMAPPA, S/O VENKARAMANAPPA, NOW AGED 61 YEARS, MINOR APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE REP BY NATURAL GUARDIAN / MOTHER , 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010426222022 NC: 2026:KHC:50030 MFA No. 6516 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3092 of 2019 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.253, WARD NO.5, BEHIND NATIONAL COLLEGE, BAGEPALLI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA R., S/O RANGAHANUMAIAH R, MAJOR BY AGE, RESIDING AT BHAGYALAKSHMI ENGINEERING WORKS, NO.3, 13TH CROSS, NEAR SHUSHRUTHI CO-OP BANK ANDRAHALLI, HEROHALLI, BENGLAURU - 560 091. 2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 14.12.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 29.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.4188/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010426222022 NC: 2026:KHC:50030 MFA No. 6516 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3092 of 2019 PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO.3092/2019: BETWEEN: M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHWETHA, W/O. LATE MUNIRAJU L, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 2. KUM. SHOBA. M @ SHRUTHI D/O. LATE MUNIRAJU.L, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, 3. MASTER. AGASTHYA. M S/O. LATE MUNIRAJU.L, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, 4. SMT. MANGAMMA @ MANJAMMA, W/O. LASHMANNA @ LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 5. SRI. LASHMANNA @ LAKSHMAIAH, S/O. LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010426222022 NC: 2026:KHC:50030 MFA No. 6516 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3092 of 2019 REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.SHWETHA. ALL ARE RESIDING AT: NO. 253, WARD NO.5, BEHIND NATIONAL COLLEGE, BAGEPALLI TOWN, CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 001. 6. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA R, S/O. RANGAHANUMAIAH R, MAJOR IN AGE, R/O. BHAGYALAKSHMI ENGINEERING, NO.3, 13TH CROSS, NEAR SHUSHRUTHI CO-OP BANK, ANDRAHALLI, HEROHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 091. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.01.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.4188/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT, (SCCH-11), BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.19,12,120/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010426222022 NC: 2026:KHC:50030 MFA No. 6516 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3092 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 29.01.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH- 11) (‘Tribunal’ for short), in MVC no.4188/2016, these appeals are filed. MFA no.6516/2022 is filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation, while MFA no.3092/2019 is filed by insurer challenging finding of Tribunal on negligence. 2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that at about 10.45 p.m. on 16.02.2016, when L. Muniraju was standing on left side of Kolar - Bengaluru NH-75 road intending to cross it, driver of car no.KA-01-MD-8482 drove it in rash and negligent manner and it came from Kolar side and dashed against him. In said accident, Muniraju sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, succumbed. Alleging loss of dependency on account of his death, his wife, two children and parents filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short), against owner and insurer of car. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010426222022 NC: 2026:KHC:50030 MFA No. 6516 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3092 of 2019 3. On contest, claim petition was opposed on all grounds including contributory negligence and violation of terms and conditions of policy. Based on pleadings Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. 4. Claimant no.1 deposed as PW1, employer of deceased examined as PW2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-26. Insurer examined its Official as RW1 and got marked copy of insurance policy as Ex.R-1. 5. On consideration, Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car, claimants were entitled for total compensation of Rs.19,12,120/- with interest at 9% p.a. and insurer was liable to pay said compensation. Dissatisfied with finding, these appeals were filed. 6. Sri N. Gopal Krishna, learned counsel for claimants submitted that as on date of accident deceased was 29 years of age, working as security guard and earning more than Rs.17,000/- per month. However, while taking his monthly wages at Rs.8,600/-, Tribunal referring to last salary slip of - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010426222022 NC: 2026:KHC:50030 MFA No. 6516 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3092 of 2019 February 2016, which was only for 16 days, awarded inadequate compensation. It was submitted that Tribunal had rightly added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of ‘17’. It was submitted that by taking monthly salary of deceased at Rs.17,238/- per month as per Exs.P-9 and P-23, compensation requires to be enhanced. It was submitted that claimants were also entitled for adequate compensation under conventional heads. On said grounds, sought for allowing appeal. 7. On other hand, Sri Ravi S. Samprathi, learned counsel for insurer opposed claimants' appeal and submitted that insurer was challenging finding of Tribunal on negligence. It was submitted that accident occurred on highway when deceased was attempting to cross road. Without apportioning contributory negligence against deceased, Tribunal had held entire negligence against driver of insured vehicle, which was not justified. Therefore, sought for modification of finding on negligence. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010426222022 NC: 2026:KHC:50030 MFA No. 6516 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3092 of 2019 8. On quantum it was submitted that Tribunal had assessed just compensation and there was no scope for enhancement. It was submitted that monthly income of deceased included variables, such as overtime allowance, which could not be considered as part of monthly income and sought for dismissal. It was submitted that even rate of interest awarded at 9% p.a. was excessive/exorbitant and sought for reduction of rate of interest and dismissal of appeal. 9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and award. 10. Occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle leading to death of Muniraju and claimants being entitled for compensation, is not in dispute. While claimants seek for enhancement, insurer is challenging finding on negligence. Therefore, points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding entire negligence against driver of insured vehicle? (ii) Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010426222022 NC: 2026:KHC:50030 MFA No. 6516 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3092 of 2019 11. To substantiate actionable negligence against respondent, claimants relied on police investigation records like FIR, complaint, spot panchanama, seizure mahazar, spot sketch, IMV report and charge sheet marked as Exs.P-1 to P-6 and P-20 respectively. Claimant no.1 also deposed as PW1. By referring to police investigation records Tribunal held entire negligence against driver of insured vehicle. 12. Ex.P-5 - spot sketch reveals that accident occurred on NH-75, a National Highway with median and service road on either side. Accident spot is on space between service road and highway. Insured vehicle was moving from Kolar towards Bangalore dashed against victim, who was standing on extreme edge of highway. Merely on ground that claimants stated about victim intending to cross road, would not establish any negligence against deceased. Applying principle of res ipsa loquitur, finding of Tribunal is upheld. Point no.1 is answered accordingly. 13. Insofar as quantum, claimants stated that deceased was earning Rs.17,000/- per month. To substantiate same, - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010426222022 NC: 2026:KHC:50030 MFA No. 6516 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3092 of 2019 they produced Ex.P-9 - salary slip for month of January 2016, Ex.P-23 – salary register extract, Ex.P-25 – salary register abstract, Ex.P-22 –bank statement. They also examined employer as PW2. Employment of victim as security guard by PW2 is not in dispute. 14. Though learned counsel for insurer is justified in submitting that gross payment received by victim every month included variable component i.e., overtime, it is seen that victim was able to earn additional income by overtime every month and not as random payment. Under above circumstances, there would be justification for considering it as part of regular income. Ex.P-23 is for months of September to December 2015 and January 2016. Though Hon'ble Supreme Court has held salary as on date of accident has to be considered, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for claimants/appellants, salary for month of February 2016 is admittedly only for 16 days as he had worked upto date of accident. Same cannot be taken into account. Gross salary for previous month i.e., January 2016 is Rs.7,238/-. Salary for preceding month i.e., December 2015 is Rs.15,292/- and - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010426222022 NC: 2026:KHC:50030 MFA No. 6516 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3092 of 2019 Rs.16,265/- would be average monthly salary. It is found appropriate to round it off to Rs.16,000/- for purposes of assessment of ‘loss of dependency’. Applying 40% as future prospects, deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses and ‘17’ as multiplier, compensation towards ‘loss of dependency’ would be Rs.34,27,200/-. 15. Claimants are wife, two minor children and parents, each of whom would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’ i.e., Rs.2,00,000/-. They would also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- each towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’ i.e., Rs.2,30,000/-. 16. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, they would be entitle for addition of 10% to compensation under conventional heads every three years. Since more than 6 years have lapsed, 20% has to be added i.e., Rs.46,000/-. Thus, total compensation would be Rs.37,03,200/-. Point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative. - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010426222022 NC: 2026:KHC:50030 MFA No. 6516 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3092 of 2019 17. In view of above, following: ORDER (i) MFA no.3092/2019 filed by insurer is dismissed. (ii) MFA no.6516/2022 filed by claimants is allowed in part. Compensation enhanced from Rs.19,12,120/- to Rs.37,03,200/- with interest at 9% p.a. from date of claim petition till deposit excluding 488 days being period of delay in filing this appeal. (iii) Judgment and award dated 29.01.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-11), in MVC no.4188/2016, stands modified holding insurer liable to pay compensation to claimants in first instance. (iv) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for disbursal. (v) Balance amount, if any, is directed to deposited before Tribunal within six weeks. (vi) On deposit, Tribunal is directed to release same in favour of claimant to his account through RTGS. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010426222022 NC: 2026:KHC:50030 MFA No. 6516 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3092 of 2019 (vii) Apportionment, deposit and release, shall be in same proportion as per award of Tribunal. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17