- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6681 OF 2023(MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.528 OF 2024 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 6681/2023 BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., BRANCH OFFICE, D. No.289/6, A. M. ARCADE, VIDHYARTHI BHAVANA, C. G. HOPSPITAL ROAD, DAVANAGERE, NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE 4TH FLOOR, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE 560025. …APPELLANT (BY SRI H. C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VIJAYAMMA, W/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 2. MANJAPPA, S/O LATE SANNA GADRAPPA @ GADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O CHIKKAPURA VILLAGE, HEREGUNTANUR HOBLI, CHITRADURGA. PRESENTLY C/O SIDDESH, S/O SANNAPPA, GUDALU VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. RAJU N., S/O NAGENDRAPPA, MAJOR, RIDER OF EXCEL HEAVY DUTY BIKE BEARING REG. No. KA -16/EJ/8615, R/O D. No.25, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKAPURA POST, CHITRDURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT 577501. 4. B. H. NAGARAJA, S/O HULIGABHOVI, MAJOR, OWNER OF EXCEL HEAVY DUTY BIKE BEARING REG. No.KA-16-EJ-8615, R/O BHOVI COLONY, GOPALAPURA ROAD, CHITRADURGA 577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 & R4 SERVED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC No.558/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.15,89,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA No. 528/2024 BETWEEN: 1. VIJAYAMMA, W/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. MANJAPPA, S/O LATE SANNA GADRAPPA @ GADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O CHIKKAPURA GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, HEREGUNTANUR HOBLI, CHITRADURGA. PRESENTLY C/O SIDDESH, S/O SANNAPPA, GUDALU VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJU N., S/O NAGENDRAPPA, R/O D. No.25, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKAPURA POST, CHITRDURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT 577501. 2. B. H. NAGARAJA, S/O HULIGABHOVI, AGE MAJOR, R/O BHOVI COLONY, GOPALAPURA ROAD, CHITRADURGA 577501. 3. THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., BRANCH OFFICE, D. No.289/6, A. M. ARCADE, VIDHYARTHI BHAVANA, C. G. HOPSPITAL ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H. C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; V/O DATED 06.06.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC No.558/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri H.C. Vrushabhendraiah, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. These appeals are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and by the insurer questioning its liability, both assailing the judgment and award dated 23.06.2023 passed in M.V.C. No.558/2020 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Davangere (for short, 'the Tribunal'). 2.1 The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking in MVC No.558/2020 for convenience. 3. M.F.A. No.528/2024 is filed along with I.A. No.1/2024 seeking condonation of delay of 120 days. Upon consideration of the reasons assigned for the delay, we find the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 explanation to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the parents of Mahanthesha (the deceased), who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 06.01.2020 involving a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-16/EH-4021 and a TVS Excel Heavy Duty vehicle (offending vehicle) bearing Reg.No.KA- 16/EJ-8615. It is pleaded that at about 9.00 p.m., when the deceased was returning to his village on his motorcycle after completing his work, the rider of the offending vehicle dashed against the deceased in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained head injuries and injuries to the left leg, left knee, and other parts of the body. He was shifted to the Government Hospital, Chitradurga; however, he was declared brought dead. 4.1 It is further pleaded that the petitioners incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- towards funeral and other related expenses. It is stated that the deceased was aged 27 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, as he was employed in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 HMG Company. It is also pleaded that the petitioners were entirely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. 4.2 In response to the notice, the rider, owner, and insurer appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 denied the allegations and the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the deceased. Respondent No.2 further contended that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3 and that respondent No.1, the rider of the offending vehicle, possessed a valid and effective driving licence. 4.3 Respondent No.3-insurer, while denying the averments made in the claim petition, contended that the accident was caused due to the sole negligence of respondent No.1, the rider of the insured vehicle. It was further contended that the deceased had also contributed to the accident. In addition, respondent No.3 denied the age, income, and occupation of the deceased. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 4.4 Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW1 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. The respondents examined 2 witnesses - RW1 and RW2 and marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4. 4.5 The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record and on reference to the police records, held that respondent No.1 was riding the offending vehicle with two pillion riders, amounting to triple-seat riding, and that due to the negligence of respondent No.1, the accident had occurred. The Tribunal accordingly concluded that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent act of respondent No.1. 4.6 On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal further held that respondent No.1, the rider of the offending vehicle, possessed a valid and effective driving licence. In the absence of proof regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted the notional income as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and assessed the monthly income at Rs.14,500/-. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 4.7 As the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal deducted 50% of the assessed income towards personal and living expenses. Considering that the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of ‘17’. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, and Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants towards loss of parental consortium. 5. Sri H.C. Vrushabhendraiah, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, submits that the accident was the result of a head-on collision and that the deceased had contributed to the negligence. It is contended that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the entire liability on the insurer. Learned counsel further submits that the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and had violated the policy conditions. On these grounds, it is contended that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. 6. Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for claimants, submits that the deceased was employed with - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 HMG Company at Chitradurga and was drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. It is contended that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income on a notional basis despite the availability of evidence establishing the actual income of the deceased. 6.1 Learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. We shall first consider the contentions urged on behalf of the insurer. The insurer has raised two principal contentions. The first contention is that the deceased had contributed to the occurrence of the accident and, therefore, the entire liability could not have been fastened on the insurer. 8.1 The Tribunal, while holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle, has relied upon the evidence of PW1 and RW2. RW2 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 deposed that the deceased was riding at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the offending vehicle. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The Tribunal held that the evidence of respondent No.1, being a party to the accident, could not be accepted in the absence of any corroborative material. 8.2 The Tribunal further noted that respondent No.1 was riding the offending vehicle with two pillion riders, amounting to triple riding. It was held that when respondent No.1 was riding the vehicle with two pillion riders, it could not be said that there was no negligence on his part. The FIR was registered against respondent No.1. Though respondent No.3– insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, no eyewitnesses were examined on its behalf and there is no material on record to establish negligence on the part of the deceased. The charge sheet filed against respondent No.1 has also not been challenged. 8.3 On the basis of the above evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of respondent No.1. Even before this Court, except for - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 contending that the deceased had contributed to the negligence, the insurer has not pointed out any material or evidence to dislodge the said finding. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is founded on the evidence available on record and cannot be interfered with in the absence of any contrary evidence demonstrated by the insurer. 8.4 The contention of the insurer regarding contributory negligence is based merely on probabilities and conjectures, which cannot be accepted. Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 8.5 The second contention urged by the insurer is that the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and that, in view of the alleged violation of the policy conditions, respondent No.3–insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. 8.6 RW2, the Assistant Manager of the insurer, has admitted in the course of cross-examination that the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle was in force on the date of the accident. RW2 has further admitted that respondent - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 No.1 possessed a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. In view of the specific admissions made by RW2 - the Assistant Manager of the insurer, it is not open to the insurer to contend that respondent No.1 did not possess a driving licence. Accordingly, the said contention is rejected. 9. The petitioners contended that the deceased was employed with HMG Company and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the said income, nor was the employer examined. In the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the notional income at Rs.14,500/- per month. The notional income so assessed is in accordance with the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 9.1 In the absence of any contrary evidence, we find that the income assessed by the Tribunal is justified. Further, considering the age of the deceased and the fact that he was a bachelor, the deduction of 50% of the assessed income towards personal and living expenses is in accordance with settled principles of law. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 10. We notice that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. Though the deceased was not in permanent employment, the petitioners are entitled to addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects in terms of the settled principles of law. There is no dispute with regard to the multiplier of ‘17’ adopted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is calculated as follows: Rs.14,500/- x 12 = Rs.1,74,000/- Rs.1,74,000/- (+) 40% future prospects = Rs.2,43,600/- Rs.2,43,600/- (-) 50% = Rs.1,21,800/- Rs.1,21,800/- X '17' = Rs.20,70,600/- 11. The compensation awarded under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, and parental consortium is required to be enhanced by 10% upon completion of every three years, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The accident in the present case occurred in the year 2020. As such the Tribunal committed an error in not granting the enhancement under the aforesaid conventional heads. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 12. Accordingly, the total compensation is assessed as under: Sl. No. Particulars Compensation award by the Tribunal (in Rs.) Enhanced compensation (in Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency 14,79,000/- 20,70,600/- 2. Towards loss of estate (10%) 15,000/- 18,000/- 3. Towards funeral expenses (10%) 15,000/- 18,000/- 4. Loss of parental consortium to each of the parents (40,000 x 2) (10%) 80,000/- 96,000/- Total 15,89,000/- 22,02,600/- Enhanced compensation 6,13,600/- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.22,02,600/- as against Rs.15,89,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the following: ORDER (i) MFA No.6681/2023 filed by the insurer is dismissed. (ii) MFA No.528/2024 filed by the petitioners is allowed in part. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5172-DB MFA No. 6681 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 528 of 2024 (iii) The judgment and award dated 23.06.2023 passed in M.V.C. No.558/2020 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Davangere, is modified by reassessing the compensation at Rs.22,90,600/-. (iv) The apportionment and order on deposit as ordered by the Tribunal is maintained. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23