Karnataka High Court
The Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sridevi And Ors on 6 November, 2025
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB
MFA No. 200342 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200342 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE BIDAR
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BILAGUNDI COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
AND:
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
1. SRIDEVI
W/O LATE CHANDRAKANTH SHERIKAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. POOJA
D/O CHANDRAKANTH SHERIKAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT, MINOR,
3. VARUN
S/O LATE CHANDRAKANTH SHERIKAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB
MFA No. 200342 of 2021
HC-KAR
AGE: 19 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT, MINOR,
4. KASTURBAI
W/O LATE KASHAPPA SHERIKAR,
AGE: 68 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: VILLAGE DAWARGAON,
TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
5. DEVANAND
S/O PANDURANGH KUNDAGULE,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O: VILLAGE BARDAPUR,
TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.09.2020 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BHALKI IN MVC
NO.557/2017 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB
MFA No. 200342 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 15.09.2020 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bhalki, in MVC 557/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 20.10.2015 at about 6:45 P.M., the deceased Chandrakanth along with his son were proceeding from their house to Kapalapur Bhavani Temple on their motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K-9150, at that time, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/L-5446 ridden by its rider with high speed in a rash and negligent manner on Bardapur cross, dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased by the wrong side and caused the accident. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB MFA No. 200342 of 2021 HC-KAR sustained grievous injuries and thereafter, he was shifted to the Government hospital, at Bhalki and there he succumbed to the injuries.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed separate written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition regarding age, occupation, income and etc.,
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited document Ex.R1 Insurance Policy. The Claims -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB MFA No. 200342 of 2021 HC-KAR Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 39/L-5446 by its rider, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and held liable respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:
a) Firstly, the accident has occurred due to the negligence of rider of Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K-
9150. He further contended that deceased/rider of the motorcycle has come to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 39/L-5446. It was contended that the rider of motorcycle -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB MFA No. 200342 of 2021 HC-KAR bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K-9150 was riding the motorcycle with two pillion riders and coming with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the vehicle coming from the opposite side, due to which, the deceased fell down and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal erred in holding that rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 39/L-5446 alone is negligent in causing the accident. He further contended that it is very clear from the motor vehicle accident report, spot sketch map and evidence of RW.1, accident has occurred due to negligence of deceased himself. Without considering this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has erred in holding that rider of offending motorcycle is negligent in causing the accident.
b) In respect of quantum, he contended that even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.45,000/- per month from agriculture and grocery business, they have not produced any document much less any bank statement to show the same. Therefore, the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB MFA No. 200342 of 2021 HC-KAR Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
c) Lastly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS
-V- VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DISPOSED OF ON 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following counter contentions:
a) Firstly, the accident has occurred due to negligence of rider of the offending motorcycle. He came to the extreme right side and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Immediately, after the accident, complaint has been lodged against the rider of the offending motorcycle. The police have registered FIR and after thorough investigation, filed charge sheet against the rider of the offending motorcycle. He further -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB MFA No. 200342 of 2021 HC-KAR contended that from the spot sketch map produced at Ex.P7, it is very clear that rider of the offending motorcycle has come to the extreme right side and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to which, deceased fell down and suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Considering the evidence of PW.1, complaint, FIR, MVA report and charge sheet, the Tribunal is right in holding that rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/L-5446 is negligent in causing the accident.
b) In respect of quantum, he contended that at the time of accident, deceased was earning Rs.20,000/-
from agriculture and Rs.25,000/- from doing grocery business. To that effect, he has produced the certificate issued by the PDO i.e., Ex.P8 and record of rights as per Ex.P9. In spite of that the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- which is on the lower side.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB MFA No. 200342 of 2021 HC-KAR
c) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is the case of the claimants that on 20.10.2015 deceased Chandrakanth was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K-9150 along with his son and claimant No.3, when they reached near the Kaplapur Bhavani Temple on Bardapur cross, at that time, rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/L-5446 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which he fell down, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. To prove the case, claimants have examined claimant No.1 as PW.1. In her evidence, she has reiterated the statement made in the claim petition. Immediately after the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB MFA No. 200342 of 2021 HC-KAR accident, PW-1 has lodged the complaint to the police against the rider of the offending motorcycle as per Ex.P2. The police have registered the FIR against the rider of the offending motorcycle as per Ex.P1. After thorough investigation, police have filed the charge sheet against the rider of the offending motorcycle. To disprove the case of the claimants, the respondents have not examined the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/L-5446 and he has not lodged any complaint against the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K-9150. The police have drawn the spot sketch map as per Ex.P7 wherein it is stated that the width of the road is about 20ft., the rider of the offending motorcycle has come to the extreme right side and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Even though the deceased was riding his motorcycle with two pillion riders, no evidence has been led to prove the same. Due to triple riding, the deceased rider also contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB MFA No. 200342 of 2021 HC-KAR the case of Mohammed Siddique and Another vs. National insurance Company Limited and Others [(2020)3 SCC 57] held that even if three persons are proceeding on a motorcycle, unless it is established that it has contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim, it cannot be held that he was negligent in causing the accident. Considering the evidence of PW-1, FIR, complaint, charge sheet, MVA report, spot sketch, the Tribunal has rightly held that rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/L-5446 was negligent in causing the accident.
10. In respect of quantum is concerned, even though the claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.45,000/- per month from agriculture and grocery business, they have produced Ex.P8, the certificate issued by the PDO, permit for kirana shop. The PDO is not the competent authority to issue the said certificate and he has not even produced the bank statement to show that
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB MFA No. 200342 of 2021 HC-KAR he was running a grocery business and they have produced the record of rights. However, no document is produced to prove that due to death of the deceased Chandrakanth, there is any loss of income to the family. Even they have not produced any bank statement to show that the deceased was earning Rs.45,000/- per month. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2015, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.8000/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. -v- Pranay Sethi And Others [AIR 2017 SC 5157]. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.11,200/-.
11. Since there are four dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the income of the deceased
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB MFA No. 200342 of 2021 HC-KAR towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '15'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.11,200*12*15*3/4) on account of 'loss of dependency'.
12. In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
13. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Vs- Nanu Ram [2018 ACJ 2782], claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium', claimant Nos.2 and 3, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss of parental consortium' and claimant No.4, mother of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB MFA No. 200342 of 2021 HC-KAR deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss of filial consortium'.
14. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation Amount
under different in (Rs.)
Heads
Loss of dependency 15,12,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 80,000
consortium
Loss of Filial 40,000
consortium
17,02,000
Total
15. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6615-DB MFA No. 200342 of 2021 HC-KAR
c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,02,000/- as against Rs.19,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
d) In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Ms.Joyeeta Bose' (supra), the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.
e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
f) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) JUDGE VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67