Karnataka High Court
M/S Shiram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt.Savitri And Ors on 5 August, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4405-DB
MFA No. 201742 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201742 OF 2019 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 200065 OF 2021 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.201742 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
E-8, EPIC, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPUR - 302 022,
Digitally signed RAJASTAN STATE,
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF INSURER OF ABOVESAID VEHICLE POLICY
KARNATAKA
NO.1003/31/15/12595.
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V.ARCADE,
BELEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
OFF BANNERUGHATTA ROAD,
IIMB POST, BENGALURU - 560 076.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4405-DB
MFA No. 201742 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT. SAVITRI
W/O SHANKARGOUDA HIREGOUDAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KIDADUR, TALUK: KUSTAGI,
NOW RESIDING AT TURADAGI,
TALUK:LINGASUGUR, DISTRICT: RAICHUR.
2. SMT.GANGAMMA
W/O BHAIRADDIGOUDA HIREGOUDA,
AGE:57 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O: KIDADUR, TALUK: KUSTAGI,
NOW RESIDING AT TURADAGI,
TALUK:LINGASUGUR,
DISTRICT: RAICHUR - 584 122.
3. KHAJAHUSSAIN
S/O HAZARATH SAB,
AGE : MAJOR, OCC:DRIVER OF VEHICLE
NO.AP-21/TW-4798, R/O HUTTI @ HATTI,
TALUK:LINGASUGUR,
DISTRICT:RAICHUR - 584 115.
4. ABDUL RAVOOF
S/O ALAM BASHA,
AGE : MAJOR, OCC:OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O: NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL KURDI,
TALUK : MANVI,
DISTRICT: RAICHUR - 584 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 &
R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4405-DB
MFA No. 201742 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
NO.376/2017 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC & MACT, AT
LINGASUGUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA.CROB.NO.200065/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SAVITRI
W/O SHANKARAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KIDADUR, TALUK: KUSTAGI,
NOW RESIDING AT TURADAGI,
TALUK:LINGASUGUR, DISTRICT: RAICHUR.
2. GANGAMMA
W/O BHAIRADDIGOUDA HIREGOUDA,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O: KIDADUR, TALUK: KUSTAGI,
NOW RESIDING AT TURADAGI,
TALUK:LINGASUGUR,
DISTRICT: RAICHUR.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KHAJAHUSSAIN
S/O HAZRATH SAB,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER
R/O HUTTI,
TALUK:LINGASUGUR,
DISTRICT:RAICHUR.
2. ABDUL RAVOOF
S/O ALAM BASHA,
AGE : MAJOR, OCC:OWNER,
R/O: NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL KURDI,
TALUK : MANVI,
DISTRICT: RAICHUR.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4405-DB
MFA No. 201742 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
3. M/S. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
E-8, EPIC, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPUR, JAIPUR,
RAJASTAN STATE,
ITS OFFICER/MANAGER,
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE,
BELEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
IIMB POST,
BENGALURU - 560 007.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE, FOR R3;
V/O DATED 10.10.2023 NOTICE TO
R1 & R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF
THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2019 PASSED BY
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT LINGASUGAR IN MVC NO.376/2017, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4405-DB
MFA No. 201742 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Though these matters are listed for orders for taking
steps against respondent Nos.3 and 4 in MFA
No.201742/2019, with the consent of learned counsel
appearing for parties, they are taken up for final disposal.
2. MFA No.201742/2019 is filed by the Insurance
Company and MFA.CROB.No.200065/2021 is filed by the
claimants challenging the judgment and award dated
01.02.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and
MACT, Lingasugur, (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MVC
No.376/2017.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance company and learned counsel appearing for the
claimants.
4. Since the liability has been fastened on the
Insurance Company, the appellant-Insurance Company
has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded on
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4405-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
the grounds that it is on the higher side and that the
aspect of contributory negligence was not taken into
consideration by the Tribunal. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company in MFA
No.201742/2019 vehemently submitted that the Tribunal
has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/-
per month, which is on the higher side, despite no
documentary evidence having been produced to support
such an income. He submits that the appeal has been filed
on two counts, firstly, the Tribunal has taken a higher
income without being any proof for such income and
secondly, the Tribunal has failed to consider the aspect of
negligence.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants vehemently contended that the claimants have
produced licence before the Tribunal to show that the
deceased was doing the business of fertilizer. He also
contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in not
adding future prospects to the income of the deceased.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4405-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
Since the age of the deceased was 40 years as on the date
of the accident, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% of
the income towards future prospects.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the Insurance company and learned counsel for the
claimants, the point that would arise for our consideration
is:
"Whether the Tribunal has committed an error
in granting higher compensation and not
considering contributory negligence and also
whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not
awarding just and reasonable compensation?"
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
both the parties and on perusal of the material available
on record, it is clear that the occurrence of the accident is
not in dispute. The main contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company is that the income
assessed by the Tribunal was on the higher side. In order
to prove the fact that the deceased was running the
business, the claimants have produced the document of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4405-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
licence at Ex.P142 before the Tribunal. Apart from that,
Ledger account issued by Hanuman Agro Agencies,
Kidodur are also produced and marked as Exs.P130 to
P132. Learned counsel also contended that in the absence
of any documentary proof with regard to the income
though he was running the business, the Tribunal ought
not to have taken the said income. However, the learned
counsel does not dispute the fact that future prospects is
not added while calculating loss of dependency.
8. However, the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the claimants is that the income taken by
the Tribunal is very meager and the Tribunal also erred in
not adding future prospects to the income of the
deceased.
9. In the absence of any documentary proof with
regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has
taken the income at Rs.18,000/- per month considering
the fact that the deceased was running business and the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4405-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
claimants have produced the documents at Exs.P130 to
132 as well as Ex.P142 which are licence and Ledger
account extract.
10. According to the postmortem report, the
deceased was aged about 40 years. As per the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, it is clear that if
the deceased is below the age of 40 years, future
prospects should be added at 40%; if the age is between
40 and 50 years, future prospects should be added at
25%.
11. The Tribunal has granted compensation by
assessing the income at Rs.18,000/- per month. Though
the Tribunal has not added future prospects to the income
of the deceased, we find that there is an error on the part
of the Tribunal in granting compensation by taking the
income at Rs.18,000/- per month which is on the higher
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4405-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
side. However, even if the income is considered as
Rs.15,000/- per month with the addition of 25% towards
future prospects, the compensation would approximately
come to the same compensation as that awarded by the
Tribunal. Hence, we find no grounds to interfere with the
quantum of compensation awarded.
12. Insofar as the other ground urged by the
learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that
the Tribunal has not considered the contention with regard
to contributory negligence, in order to prove the said
factum of contributory negligence, none of the witnesses
have been examined by the insurance company before the
Tribunal, except producing the documents at Exs.R1 to R3
viz., Insurance Policy, DL extract and 'B' register extract.
In the absence of any evidence either oral or documentary
with regard to the negligence, the Court cannot assume
and presume anything. Hence, we do not find any material
to interfere with the finding on negligence.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4405-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
13. However, insofar as the contention of the
learned counsel appearing for the insurance company in
respect of awarding of interest by the Tribunal at 9% is
concerned, the Tribunal has not discussed anything about
the acceptance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs.
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and others
reported in (2011)14 SCC 481 to award interest at the
rate of 9%. In motor accident claim cases, the Hon'ble
Apex Court as well as this Court has consistently awarded
interest at the rate of 6%.
14. When such being the case, the only ground
made out by the Insurance Company is for modification of
the interest rate from 9% to 6%. Hence, the appeal filed
by the insurance company is liable to be partly allowed.
Insofar as the cross-objection filed by the claimants
seeking enhancement of compensation, we do not find any
merit in the cross-objection to enhance the compensation.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4405-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
Hence, we answer the above point for consideration in
negative.
15. In view of the above discussions, we pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal filed by the Insurance company in
MFA No.201742/2019 is allowed in part.
ii. The cross objection filed by the claimants in
MFA.CROB.No.200065/2021 is dismissed.
iii. The impugned judgment and award dated
01.02.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC and MACT at Lingasugur in MVC
No.376/2017 is modified only in respect of
awarding of interest by reducing the same
from 9% to 6%.
iv. The amount, if any, in deposit before this
Court is ordered to be transmitted to the
Tribunal forthwith.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4405-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
v. The balance amount is payable by the
appellant-Insurance Company within a period
of six weeks from today.
vi. Registry is directed to send the records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
NB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5/CT:NI
