Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Kusumavathi P on 10 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6652 OF 2013 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1412 OF 2013
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3409 OF 2013
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8139 OF 2014
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8140 OF 2014
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2397 OF 2015 (MV-D)
MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 45 OF 2013
IN MFA No. 6652/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SMT VIAJAYALAKSHMI. K
W/O LATE VEDAVYASA RAO,
Digitally signed 2. H. MADHU BHAT
by
PADMASHREE AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
SHEKHAR DESAI S/O LATE VEDAVYASA RAO,
Location: High
Court of BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
Karnataka "PRANAVA HOUSE"
NEAR RAGHAVENDRA MUTT,
DARBE, SAMATHADKA VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT DEEPA S RAO
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
M/S. MANJUNATHA ROADLINES,
SHOP NO.8, P.V.S CENTENARY BUILDING,
R/O GUMPAKALLU HOUSE,
KODIALBAIL,
MANGALORE-575 003.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
DIVISION OFFICE-P.O. BOX NO. 705,
1ST FLOOR, RAMABHAVAN COMPLEX,
KODIALBAIL,
MANGALORE-575 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.348/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT-IV & III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.,
MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 1412/2013
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
P.B.NO. 705, 1ST FLOOR
RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE, D.K
BY REGIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSONCIRCLE
BANGALORE-560027
BY ITS MANAGER
...APPELLANT
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
(BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KUSUMAVATHI P.
AGE: 63 YEARS
W/O LATE M N RAMACHANDRAGOWDA
2. SUMA R K
AGE: 34 YEARS
D/O LATE M N RAMACHANDRAGOWDA
3. BHAVYA R K
AGE: 28 YEARS
D/O LATE M N RAMACHANDRAGOWDA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
"SUPRIBHA" HOUSE
NEAR SRINIVASA NURSHING HOME
SAMYETHADKA, DARBE
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574 203
4. SMT. DEEPA RAO
MAJOR
W/O M SADASHIVJA RAO
MANJUNATHA ROADLINES
SHOP NO. 8, PVS CENTURY BUILDING
KIDIALBAIL,MANGALORE-575 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANIL BABU .C, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3,
V/O DTD:12.02.2013 NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED28.8.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.119/2009 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-III AND II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K, MANGALORE, AWARDING
A COMPENSATION OF RS.10,60,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6%
P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
IN MFA NO. 3409/2013
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMANY LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
B NO. 705, 1ST FLOOR
RAMBHAVAN COMLEX
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE D K-03
BY REGIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560027
BY ITS MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT K VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE VEDAVYASA RAO
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
2. H MADHU BHAT
S/O LATE VEDAVYASA RAO
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
"PRANAVA HOUSE"
NEAR RAGHAVENDRA MUTT DARBE,
SAMATHADKA VILLAGE
PUTTUR TALUK-574 201
3. SMT DEEPA S RAO
W/O M SADASHIVA RAO
MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA ROADLINES
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
SHOP NO. 8, PVS CENTENARY
BUILDING,, KIDIALBAIL
MANGALORE-575 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2,
V/O DTD:17.04.2013 NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 08.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.348/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-IV, D.K.,
MANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.5,41,000/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO. 8139/2014
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
P B NO.705, IST FLOOR
RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE DK
BY REGIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560027
BY ITS MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR SHEIK AHAMAD SAHEB
S/O SHEIK MOHAMMED YUSUF
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
2. MRS ZUBAIDA SHEIK AHAMAD
W/O SHEIK AHMAD SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
3. SHEIK SHAHEER
S/O SHEIK AHAMAD SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
4. MS SAYEEDARA AHAMAD
D/O SHEIK AHAMAD SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 18 YEAS
ALL ARE R/A SHEIK MANZIL
NEAR OLD KEB
VITTAL, DK-574 243
5. SMT DEEPA S RAO
MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA ROADLINES
SHOP NO.8, PVS CENTENARY BUILDING
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE-575001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K RANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED19.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.251/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-III, D.K., MANGALORE,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,72,000/- WITH INTEREST
@ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO. 8140/2014
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
P B NO.705, IST FLOOR
RAMBAHVANA COMPLEX
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE DK
BY REGIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
NRUPATHUGNA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560027
BY ITS MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR PHILIP LIGORI NORONHA
S/O LATE IGNATIUS NORONHA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. SMT FLORA NORONHA
W/O PHILIP LIGORI NORONHA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/A NO.ST.JOSEPH
NAGAR JEPPU,
MANGALORE TALUK-575 001.
3. SMT DEEPA S RAO
MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA ROADLINES
SHOP NO.8, PVS CENTENARY BUILDING
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE-575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURU PRASAD .B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2,
R3-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED10.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.279/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-III, D.K., MANGALORE,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,80,000/- WITH
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO. 2397/2015
BETWEEN:
1. MR PHILIP LIGORI NORONHA
S/O LATE IGNATIUS NOROHNA,
AGED 66 YEARS,
2. SMT. FLORA NORONHA
W/O PHILIP LIGORI NORONHA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT ST.JOSEPH NAGAR,
JEPPU, MANGALORE TALUK
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B.R. GURUPRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,
DIVISION OFFICE, POST BOX NO.705,
1ST FLOOR, RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX,
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE 575001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
2. SMT. DEEPA S. ROA
AGE MAJOR,
M/S.MANJUNATHA ROADLINES,
SHOP NO.8, PVS CENTENARY BUILDING,
KODAILBAIL, MANGALORE-575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1.
R2-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 10.2.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.279/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
SESSIONS JUDE, MACT-3, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA.CROB NO. 45/2013
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. KUSUMAVATHI P
W/O LATE M N RAMACHANDRAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT "SUPRIBHA" HOUSE,
NEAR SRINIVASA NURSING HOME
SAMYETHADKA, DARBE
PUTTUR TALUK, D K -574 203.
2. SUMA R K
D/O LATE M N RAMACHANDRAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT "SUPRIBHA" HOUSE,
NEAR SRINIVASA NURSING HOME
SAMYETHADKA, DARBE
PUTTUR TALUK D K -574 203.
3. BHAVYA R K
D/O LATE M N RAMACHANDRAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT "SUPRIBHA" HOUSE,
NEAR SRINIVASA NURSING HOME
SAMYETHADKA, DARBE
PUTTUR TALUK D K -574 203.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. ANIL BABU .C, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY .T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. FEDRIC VAS,
S/O LATE FRANKI VAS
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT BERETTO COMPOUND,
K.K. GATE, KUNDAPURA,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-567 101.
2. SMT DEEPA S RAO
MANJUNATHA ROAD LINES
SHOP NO.8
PVS CENTRY BUILDING, KODIALBAIL
MANGALORE, D.K.-575 101.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE:
P B NO. 705, 1ST FLOOR
RAMBHVAN COMPLEX
KODIALBAIL
MANGALORE D K-575 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. OM MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R3, R2-SERVED,
V/O DTD:30.07.2024-APPEAL AGAINST R1 IS ABATED)
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.1412/2013 FILED U/O 41,
RULE 22(1) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED28.8.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.119/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT, MEMBER, MACT-3, D.K.,
MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE MFA AND MFA CROB HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 28.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
CAV JUDGMENT
In M.F.A. No.6652/2013 and M.F.A. No.3409/2013 M.F.A. No.6652/2013 is filed by the claimants and M.F.A. No.3409/2013 is filed by insurance company against the judgment and award dated 08.01.2013 MACT-IV and III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore, In MVC No.348/2009.
2. One H. Vikram Bhat, met with an accident on 03.11.2008 and died subsequently. His mother and brother filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.5,41,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and respondent No.2 insurance company was directed to deposit the amount within two months from the date of the award.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, M.F.A. No.6652/2013 is filed seeking enhancement in which it is contended that Vikram Bhat was very intelligent, obtained Bachelor degree in Computer Applications from Sree Devi College of Information
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 Science, affiliated to Mangalore University. After education in December 2007, there was an offer letter to him to work as Sales Development Manager in HDFC standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. located at Mangalore with a salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. They filed salary certificate, but the Tribunal has considered his income as Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on lower side. The Tribunal also erred in calculating compensation under various heads, and interest is to be granted at the rate of 8% per annum instead of 6%.
4. The insurance company has filed M.F.A. No.3409/2013 contending that Tribunal without considering contributing negligence on the part of the driver of the car in which deceased was travelling gave finding that driver of the bus in question was on the extreme left side of the road as per Exhibit P6 sketch. It was open for vehicles plying in both directions as other portion of the road was blocked for the purpose of construction of a flyover at that stretch of road. The width of the road as per Exhibit P6 indicates that total width was 30 feet from the place of impact between two vehicles and there was clear 20 feet free space on the left side of the car,
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 and it shows that the accident was due to the sole negligence of Vikram Bhat as there was no obstruction for clear visibility at 07.30 a.m. Head Constable who gave complaint was not an eyewitness, and he went to the spot only after receiving information. The reasoning of the Tribunal to hold that the bus driver alone was negligent based on the police investigation reports, was not proved by examining the concerned Investigating Officer, and it is not proper and correct. Tribunal has granted Rs. 5,14,800/- under head of loss of dependency, by taking the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and adding 30% towards future prospect and deducting 50% towards self expenses and taking the multiplier of his mother as 11. Vikram Bhat was aged 25 years and he would have married in near future and have contributed more and thus, one third is to be deducted, as other elder brother, aged 29 years, would also contribute to the welfare of the mother of deceased and thus, requested for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
6. These appeals arise out of the same accident occurred on 03.11.2008 within the limits of Panambur Police Station, Mangaluru, in which United India Insurance Company Limited has seriously disputed the contributory negligence on their part. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to discuss regarding the said negligence aspect on the part of United India Insurance Company Ltd.
7. The manner of accident shows that on 03.11.2008, while Vikram Bhat along with his four friends were coming from Udupi towards Mangalore on NH-17 in a Ford Icon car bearing registration number KA-12B-2277 at about 07.30 a.m. and car reached in front of JB petrol bunk, Panambur which is one way traffic was hit by Ashok Leyland bus bearing registration No.KA- 19B-2273 driven by its driver in a rash and negligence manner with high speed. It was coming from opposite direction, and it entered the one way track from Kulur Bridge onwards. Due to the impact, Vikram Bhat and his friends who were travelling in the car seriously injured and three persons succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Vikram Bhat and another one were
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 admitted in A.J.I.M.S. Mangalore and later, they succumbed to injuries.
8. Respondent No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsels and filed written statement. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle contended that accident is due to the negligence and due to the carelessness of the driver of the car in the process of overtaking stationary vehicle in excessive speed and unmindful of either the vehicles coming in its direction or the ongoing four lane work that was in progress, dashed the bus without giving any time for the bus to avoid the accident. Bus was on its way from Bangalore to Kundapur and it was made to travel in that part of the road on account of traffic sign boards to travel in the said stretch of national highway near Panambur beach road junction on account of ongoing four lane work that was in progress. As such, there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver and respondent No.1 also denied other aspects of the petition.
9. Respondent No.2-insurance company stated that the person who was driving the vehicle was not their driver. The
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 criminal case filed against him ended in acquittal. The driver of the bus was not working under first respondent and he cannot be held responsible for the accident and for any contributing negligence. The further stated that bus was insured with them.
10. Petitioner No.2-brother of the deceased was examined as PW1 and they also examined the complainant as PW2 and they filed Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P16 to support their case. Respondents have not examined any witnesses, but filed Exhibit R1 copy of the insurance policy and R2 copy of the judgment in S.C. No.16 of 2019.
11. It was stated that petitioner No.2 has given evidence as P.W.1 and he stated regarding the accident on the basis of information received by him. Respondent No.1 has not cross examined and respondent No.2 has not denied the accident in the cross-examination. Exhibit P1 is the FIR registered by Panambur Police in Crime No.147 of 2008 for an offence punishable under Section 279, 228, 304(A) IPC. Exhibit P2 is the complaint given by one Narayana Hedge, Head Constable, who is examined as P.W.2. Exhibit P3 is a requisition filed by
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 Circle Police Inspector contending, claiming that they registered a case. It is stated that driver of the bus knowing fully well driving the bus in the opposite direction in one way though there was no problem for going in a proper route. As such, they converted the said section into Section 304 IPC. Initially, they filed complaint in Crime No. 147 of 2008 for an offences under Section 217 and 304(B) IPC and later, converted the same into 304 IPC. Exhibit P4 is the intimation given by police under Section 160 of MV Act. Exhibit P5 is the scene of offence panchanama. As per Exhibit P5, accident occurred on NH17, Udupi-Mangalore, near petrol bunk on the western side and towards north, there is 30 feet wide new road coming from Udupi to Mangalore, there is also divider in between two roads which is about 3 feet and towards western side of the said divider i.e. Mangaluru-Udupi, 30 feet road. The petitioner produced hand sketch map which clearly indicates that there is divider in between 30 feet road on either side and the bus came in a wrong side. Exhibit P6 is sketch. Exhibit P7 is the P.M. report of the Vikram Bhat. Exhibit P8 is the motor vehicle inspection report and it indicates damage to both vehicles. RTO
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 opined that accident is not due to mechanical defects of the vehicles. Exhibit P15 is the charge sheet against the driver of the bus. Exhibit P16 is the copy of the order which indicates that bus was released by respondent No.1 and case was committed to the Sessions Court.
12. P.W.2 stated that, on intimation, he went to the spot and found there was head on collusion between bus and car. He denied the suggestion that vehicles were moving only on one side and work was going on other side. He stated that work was not going on the other side of the road. Respondent No.1 has not denied the accident and respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence. Merely, because the criminal case ended in acquittal, it cannot be said that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It was further observed that the driver of the bus moved the bus in one way traffic from opposite direction, that itself indicates that he was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner knowing fully well that vehicles are not permitted to come from the opposite direction in one way traffic, therefore, it can't be said there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
13. The learned counsel for insurance company contended that the insurance company mainly relied upon Exhibit P6-Sketch and stated that bus was on the extreme left side of the road which was open for vehicles plying in both directions. The other portion of the road was blocked for the purpose of construction of a flyover. But PW2 in his evidence has clearly stated that road was not blocked on the other side and bus came on the wrong side of the road in one way from opposite direction and dashed the car. Respondents, though denied negligence on their part, have not examined any other witness and simply relied upon Exhibit R2 copy of the judgment in S.C. No.16 of 2009 in which driver of the bus was acquitted merely because the case ended in acquittal. It cannot be said that there is no negligence on his part and moreover, the judgment in criminal case is not binding on the MACT.
14. Learned counsel for Insurance company also raised another objection that petition is bad for non-joiner of necessary party and the owner and insurer of the Ford icon car were not made as parties. Respondent No.2-insurance
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 company filed copy of the insurance policy of the bus Ashok Leyland Bus with registration No.KA-19B-2273 under Exhibit R1. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle, insured the vehicle with respondent No.2 and the policy was in existence as on the date of accident, as such, based on the available oral and documented evidence, the Tribunal has clearly held that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the insurance company cannot be considered. Accordingly, this Court holds the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the bus.
15. It is stated that Vikram Bhat was working as Sales Department Manager in HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company with a salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. Ex.P.10 is the offer letter. It is stated that appointment letter was produced and his total salary was Rs.13,490/- and he was working from 13.12.2007 till the date of accident. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take income of Vikram Bhat as Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. As per the PM report, he was aged 25 years and the multiplier is 18. Therefore, as per the guidelines in the case of National Insurance Company
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1, he is entitled for 40% towards future prospects as he was working as a private employee, and as he was a bachelor, 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.25,20,000/- (2,00,000 + 40% - 50% x 18).
16. 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, the 1st petitioner-mother of Vikram Bhat is entitled for Rs.40,000/- under head loss of filial consortium. Rs.30,000/- is awarded under conventional heads, as per the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 (2020) 9 SCC 644
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi5. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.25,90,000/-.
17. In all, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.25,90,000/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.5,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
18. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under:
Heads Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of Dependency 25,20,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium 40,000/-
3. Towards conventional heads 30,000/-
Total 25,90,000/-
19. In the result, the following order is passed:
(i) M.F.A. No.6652/2015 filed by the claimants is allowed in part, and M.F.A No.3409/2013 filed by insurance company is dismissed.
5 (2017) 16 SCC 680
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
(ii) The claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.25,90,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) Respondent No.2-insurance company in M.F.A. No.6652/2013 has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal, and therefore, they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.20,49,000/- with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order.
(iv) On such deposit, the 1st petitioner-mother of Vikram Bhat is alone permitted to withdraw entire amount along with interest accrued on it, as the 2nd petitioner is major and not dependent on deceased.
In M.F.A. No.1412 of 2013 and MFA Cr.ob. No.45/2013
20. M.F.A. No.1412/2013 is filed by insurance company and MFA Cr.ob. No.45/2013 is filed by claimants against the judgment and award dated 28.08.2012 passed in MVC No.119/2009 by the Member, MACT-III and II Additional District Judge, D.K. Mangalore. One R.K. Preetham, aged about 26 years, met with an accident on 03.11.2008 and died
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 subsequently. His mother and sisters filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.10,60,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.
21. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance company has preferred appeal in M.F.A. No.1412/2013 on the similar grounds, as mentioned in the aforesaid appeals filed by the insurance company. The claimants filed M.F.A. Cr.ob. No.45/2013 in compensation mainly contending that the Tribunal has taken multiplier as 17 instead of 19. As deceased was 26 years, 30% income is to be taken up towards loss of future prospects and Tribunal granted meagre amounts under other heads and thus, requested for enhancement of compensation.
22. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.
23. It is stated that Preetham was working in Max New York Life Insurance Ltd. (Y.S. Bank), Mangalore and getting a
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 salary of Rs.20,300/-. The petitioners examined PW2-Vivek to prove that Preetham was working as an Assistant Manager and an eye witness as PW3. PW2 produced salary certificate as per Ex.P.11, authorisation letter Ex.P.14. It was stated that Preetham was working on contract basis. As per salary certificate, he was getting a salary of Rs.20,298/- per month, but it was not mentioned as to whether he was working on probation or his employment was confirmed or not. He entered into the service in the year 2007 and he met with an accident on 03.11.2008. PW2 stated that the salary would be credited to his bank account, but it was not filed before the Court. Though PW2 stated that Preetham was working with them, they have not filed any records regarding the salary. But the Tribunal has taken his salary as Rs.20,300/- per month, i.e. Rs.2,43,600/- per annum. Out of which, Rs.9,360/- was deducted towards income tax and the salary per annum is Rs.2,34,240/-. Preetham is entitled for 40% towards his future prospects but the Tribunal has erred in taking the same as 50%. 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses as he was a bachelor. So the loss of dependency comes to Rs.29,51,424/-
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 (2,34,240 + 40% - 50% x 18). Petitioner No.1 being the mother is entitled or Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium. The petitioners are entitled for Rs.30,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.30,21,424/-.
24. In all, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.30,21,424/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.10,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
25. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under:
Heads Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of Dependency 29,51,424/-
2. Loss of Consortium 40,000/-
3. Towards conventional heads 30,000/-
Total 30,21,424/-
26. In the result, the following order is passed:
(i) M.F.A. No.1412/2013 filed by the insurance company is dismissed and M.F.A. Cr.ob. No.45/2013 filed by the claimants is allowed in part.
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
(ii) The claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.30,21,424/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) The respondent insurance company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal, and therefore, they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.19,61424/- with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order.
(iv) On such deposit, the petitioner No.1 being mother of deceased alone is permitted to withdraw entire amount along with interest accrued on it. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are married sisters of Preetham and it cannot be said that they are depending on him, and as such, they are not entitled for any compensation.
In M.F.A. No.8139/2014
27. This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the judgment and award dated 19.02.2014 passed by MACT-III and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore, In MVC No.251/2009. One Sheik Shameer, aged about 21
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 years, met with an accident on 03.11.2008 and died subsequently. His parents, brother and sister filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.4,72,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
28. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed whereby the insurance company has urged the grounds as mentioned in M.F.A. No.3409/2013, wherein the grounds are written in detail, and thus, requested for reducing the compensation.
29. In this case, the claimants have examined PW2 as an eye witness to the occurrence and he stated that bus was proceeding from Mangaluru towards Udupi in high speed and car was coming from Udupi towards Mangaluru. Driver of the bus came in a wrong side and dashed the car and caused the accident. He has given the statement before the police.
30. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
31. The issue of negligence and liability of the insurance company is already discussed in paragraphs 7 to 14 of this judgment and as such, it need not be repeated.
32. As per Exhibit P7 and Exhibit P9, age of the victim is mentioned as 21 years and he was born on 24.08.1986. Exhibit P11 is the copy of death certificate and Exhibit P13 is the copy of the passport. He was serving as Sales Manager in Sharif Electronics Dubai UAE, and earning 3,250 Diarms per month, equivalent to Rs.39,000/- per month in Indian currency. It was observed that P.W.1 has not produced any evidence to show that deceased had gone to Dubai and worked there, and P.W.1 has not produced Visa and any record to show about his stay in the Dubai. No proper entries are forthcoming in Exhibit P13. No bank account is produced. Salary slip is also not filed. Though claimants have not examined any other person from Sharif Electronics to prove employment and income of deceased, P.W.1, in the cross-examination, stated that her son was studying BCA in Shridevi College. Therefore, the Tribunal taken the notional income of deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 and Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.4,72,000/-. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
In M.F.A. No.2397/2015 and M.F.A. No.8140/2014
33. M.F.A. No.2397/2015 is filed by the claimants and M.F.A. No.8140/2014 is filed by the insurance company against the judgment and award dated 10.02.2014 passed by MACT-III and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore, in MVC No.279/2009. One Lionel Michael Noronha, aged about 22 years, met with an accident on 03.11.2018 and died subsequently. His parents filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
34. Aggrieved by the said order, M.F.A. No.2397/2015 is filed seeking enhancement in which it is contended that the deceased was aged 22 years, studied BCA from Sree Devi
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 College, Mangalore and selected by Royal Arabian Tours at Mangalore and getting a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken only Rs.5,000/- per month and Tribunal has not added 50% towards future prospects and erred in deducting 50% towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. The amounts granted under the other heads are meagre, and thus, requested for enhancement.
35. M.F.A. No.8140/2014 is filed by insurance company in which it is contended that the Tribunal has and erred in deducting 50% towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd and the multiplier of 11 should have been applied considering the age of mother of deceased, and thus, requested for reduction in compensation.
36. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides.
37. The issue of negligence in these cases is already discussed in paragraphs 7 to 14 of this judgment, and as such, it need not be repeated.
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
38. Exhibit P9 is the course completion certificate. Exhibit P11 is the Bachelor of Computer Application Certificate. Exhibit P12 is SSLC Marks. Exhibit P15 and Exhibit P16 are the election identity cards. Lionel Michael Noronha was born on 08.09.1986. As such he was aged 22 years at the time of accident and the multiplier is 18. Petitioner produced Exhibit P17 copy of Power of Attorney, Exhibit P18 is trade licence, Exhibit P19 is letter of Appointment and Exhibit P21 muster roll to show his attendance, but it does not bear his signature. Exhibit P20 is the salary wage register and it is marked as subject to the objection, and it is mentioned that salary of October 2008 was paid to his mother. There are no other previous reports regarding work and salary. If at all he worked as Operative Executive prior to the accident, he would have put his signature in the attendance register and received salary. As such, Tribunal held that Exhibit P20 and P21 are not inspiring the confidence and taken his income as Rs.5,000/- per month. Petitioner examined the employer as PW2 and he stated that he was serving in their travel agency and getting a salary of
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 Rs.8,000/- per month and he issued Exhibit P8 salary certificate and he also produced Muster Roll.
39. Admittedly, as per the salary register wages of October month were received by his mother and in the register, it was mentioned as Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take notional income of Lionel Michael Noronha as Rs.8,000/- per month. He was aged 22 years. He is entitled for 40% towards future prospects and 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses as he was a bachelor at the time of the accident. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,09,600/- (8,000 + 40% x 12 x 18 - 50%). Petitioners No.1 and no. 2 are parents of the deceased and 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. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.13,19,600/-.
40. In all, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.13,19,600/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.5,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
41. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under:
Heads Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of Dependency 12,09,600/-
2. Loss of Consortium 80,000/-
3. Towards conventional heads 30,000/-
Total 13,19,600/-
42. In the result, the following order is passed:
(i) M.F.A. No.2397/2015 filed by the claimants is allowed in part, and M.F.A No.8140/2014 filed by insurance company is dismissed.
(ii) The claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.13,19,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) Respondent No.1-insurance company in M.F.A. No.2397/2015 has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal, and therefore, they are directed to deposit the
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949 MFA No. 6652 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013 MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014 HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015 MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013 enhanced amount of Rs.7,39,600/- with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order.
(iv) On such deposit, both the parents 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.: 101