Karnataka High Court

Sri. Puttaswamy vs Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd on 11 August, 2025

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:30845
                                                           MFA No. 3965 of 2020


                   HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3965 OF 2020(MV-D)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI. PUTTASWAMY,
                         S/O LATE BORAIAH,
                         AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

                   2.    SMT. MANJULA @ MANJU,
                         W/O PUTTASWAMY,
                         AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

                   3.    PREMA H.P.,
                         D/O PUTTASWAMY,
                         AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
                         ALL ARE R/AT HEANDYAPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                         KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
                         RAMANGARA DSITRICT - 562 117.
Digitally signed
by ANJALI M                                                    ...APPELLANTS
Location: High
Court of           (BY SMT.NITYA V., ADVOCATE FOR
Karnataka              SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
                         OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, SM TOWERS,
                         11TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK,
                         JAYANAGAR,
                         BANGALORE - 560 011.
                         REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
                                -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:30845
                                             MFA No. 3965 of 2020


HC-KAR




2.   MOHAMMED SULAIMAN S,
     S/O SULTAN R.M.,
     MAJOR,
     R/AT NO.44/3, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
     2ND CROSS, LIC COLONY,
     3RD BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR,
     BANGALORE - 560 011.
                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
    DATED 04.08.2025)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6795/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE
AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
SCCH-18, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION      AND    SEEKING     ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR


                       ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellants/claimants being dissatisfied by the

common judgment and award dated 03.02.2020 passed in MVC

No.6795/2018 by the III Additional Judge and Member, MACT,

Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, have preferred this appeal

seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal.

NC: 2025:KHC:30845

HC-KAR

2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their

rank before the Trial Court for convenience.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows -

The claimants being the legal heirs of deceased

Gangadhara filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-

(Rupees Ten Lakh only) on the ground that, on 08.11.2018 at

8.00 p.m. the deceased Gangadhara was riding his motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA 09 HS 5556 with his friend Harish,

who is the petitioner in MVC No.6796/2018 as a pillion rider

slowly and cautiously. When they reached near Nettigere

Gate, Kanakapura - Bengaluru Main Road, Uttarahalli Hobli,

Bengaluru, at that time, the driver of a car bearing registration

No.KA 51 MA 4082 drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner in high speed and dashed against the motorcycle.

Because of the impact, both the rider and pillion rider fell down

and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased Gangadhara

was shifted to Aastra hospital, Bengaluru for treatment and

thereafter, after first aid treatment, he was taken to St. Johns

NC: 2025:KHC:30845

HC-KAR

Hospital, Bengaluru. Despite giving better treatment, he

succumbed to the accidental injuries.

4. It is the case of the claimants that, they are the legal

heirs of deceased Gangadhara and deceased was the only

earning member in their family. Prior to the accident, deceased

was hale and healthy and was aged 22 years. He was working

as an electrician at the time of accident and also a class I

contractor and in addition to that, he was an agriculturist.

Thus, from his profession, he was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m.

Because of the unexpected death of the deceased, the

claimants have lost their bread earner in their family. Hence,

it is prayed by the claimants to award the compensation as

prayed for in their petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 appeared and

resisted the petition by filing detailed objection statement. It is

contended that, the accident was not because of any rash and

negligent driving of the alleged car in the manner alleged. It

was the deceased who was rash and negligent in causing the

accident. It is contended that, the liability of respondent No.2

NC: 2025:KHC:30845

HC-KAR

is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, it is

prayed by respondent No.2 to dismiss the petition.

6. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the

learned Tribunal framed five issues.

7. To substantiate the case of the claimants, claimant

No.1 entered the witness box as PW.1 and got marked 22

documents as EXs.P1 to P22 and also examined one Muniraju

as PW.3. Respondent No.2 has led evidence of one D S

Pradeep as RW.1 and got marked a copy of the policy. The

learned Tribunal, on hearing the arguments of both sides and

on evaluation of the evidence, held that, the said accident has

taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the car

by its driver and in that accident, the deceased Gangadhara

succumbed to the injuries. With regard to the award of

compensation, learned Tribunal held that though it is submitted

with regard to the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.30,000/- p.m., as there is no proof regarding the actual

income, it held that the deceased was earning Rs.11,900/- p.m.

as notional income, in which 40% was added towards future

prospects by relying on the judgment in the case of National

NC: 2025:KHC:30845

HC-KAR

Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in

(2017) 16 SCC 680 and deducted half of his income towards

his personal expenses, by applying multiplier '18', awarded a

sum of Rs.12,85,200/- (Rs.5,950 x 12 x 18) towards loss of

dependency.

8. In so far as other heads are concerned, the Tribunal has

awarded compensation towards loss of estate; transportation of

dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses; and

towards loss of filial consortium, and in all awarded

Rs.13,95,200/-.

9. Being dissatisfied with the said award passed by the

Tribunal, now the appellants are before this Court seeking

enhancement of the compensation.

10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

appellants - claimants and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

11. On perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal memo

as well as the material on record, the respondent No.1 is not

disputing the accident. So also the findings of the learned

Tribunal that, the said accident has taken place because of the

NC: 2025:KHC:30845

HC-KAR

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing

registration No.KA 51 MA 4082. The respondent No.1 has not

preferred any appeal challenging the said finding. Therefore,

whatever the finding that has been given by the Tribunal have

attained finality.

12. The respondents also do not deny the death of

Gangadhara H P, S/o Puttaswamy in a road traffic accident that

took place on 08.11.2018 at 8.00 p.m. near Nettigere gate,

Kanakapura - Bengaluru Main Road, because of the rash and

negligent driving of the car bearing No.KA 51 MA 4082. The

only grievance of the claimants - appellants in this appeal is

that, whatever the compensation that was awarded by the

Tribunal is on the lower side.

13. It is submitted by Miss Nithya, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the advocate on record for the appellant

that, deceased Gangadhara was an electrician and also a class I

contractor and was an agriculturist. From his profession, he

was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. She submits that, though

documents are produced and substantiated through evidence of

PW.1, the learned Tribunal has taken the notional income of the

NC: 2025:KHC:30845

HC-KAR

deceased at Rs.11,900/-, which is on lower side. She further

submits that, with regard to the award of the compensation

under other relevant heads, the Tribunal has not considered the

same keeping in mind the judgment in Pranay Sethi's case,

stated supra, that there is no escalation towards loss of estate,

transportation of dead body, funeral expenses, so also towards

consortium. Thus, she submits that, the compensation so

awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement.

14. As against this submission, learned counsel Sri D

Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 -

insurer justifies the award passed by the Tribunal and submits

that there shall not be any enhancement in the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal and he prays for dismissal of this

appeal.

15. Having given my anxious consideration to the

arguments of both sides, the only point that has to be

considered is,

" Whether the claimants - appellants in this appeal are entitled for enhancement of compensation or otherwise ? "

NC: 2025:KHC:30845

HC-KAR

16. Though, it is argued by the counsel for the appellant

that deceased Gangadhara was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m., as

rightly observed by the Tribunal, except the self serving

evidence of PW.1, there is no evidence placed by the claimants

that he was really earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. Because of the

same, the learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of

the deceased at Rs.11,900/-. Based upon that the loss of

dependency is calculated by the Tribunal. In the absence of

relevant proof regarding the income of the deceased, one has

to rely upon the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authorities with regard to assessment of the income.

As per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authorities, as the accident has taken place in the year 2018,

the notional income that has to be assessed is Rs.12,500/-. To

this, 40% is to be added towards future prospects of the

deceased. Thus the total monthly income of the deceased

would be Rs.17,500/-. As the deceased was a bachelor, half of

his income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses.

That means, Rs.17500/2 = Rs.8,750/-. It is to be multiplied

with '12' to calculate annually. As the deceased was aged 22

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30845

HC-KAR

years, the proper multiplier as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009

SC 3104 that is applicable is '18'. Thus the loss of dependency

comes to Rs.18,90,000/- (Rs.8,750 x 12 x 18) as against

Rs.13,95,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

17. So far as 'loss of estate' and 'transportation of dead

body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses the Tribunal

has awarded Rs.15,000/- each on these heads. As per the

judgment in Pranay Sethi's case, stated supra, there shall be

increase of 10% escalation as the accident has taken place in

the year 2018. Therefore, it would be Rs.16,500/-

(Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1,500/-) each towards 'loss of estate' and

'loss of transportation of dead body, funeral ceremony

expenses'.

18. So far as 'loss of consortium' is concerned, as in the

claim petition, there are three legal heirs left behind by the

deceased. But the Tribunal has awarded Rs.80,000/- only

towards loss of consortium. As per the judgment in Pranay

Sethi's case, each legal heir is entitled for compensation

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30845

HC-KAR

towards loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- and there shall be

escalation at the rate of 10%, that means to Rs.44,000/- each,

thus it comes to Rs.1,32,000/-. Thus, all the claimants are

entitled for 'loss of consortium' at Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.44,000

x 3).

19. Thus, the appellants-claimants are entitled for the total

compensation as per the following table:

1 Towards loss of dependency Rs.18,90,000/- 2 Towards loss of estate Rs.16,500/-

3 Towards transportation of Rs.16,500/-

          dead    body,    funeral   &
          obsequies           ceremony
          expenses
    4     Towards loss of consortium      Rs.1,32,000/-
                    TOTAL              Rs.20,55,000/-

20. It is held that, the said accident has taken place

because of the rash and negligent driving of the car owned by

owner of car arraigned as respondent No.1 in the claim petition

and insured with respondent No.1 in this appeal. Under the

law of indemnity, insurer has to pay compensation. Hence,

respondent No.1 - insurer has to deposit the compensation

amount. Accordingly, it is held that, the appellants -

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30845

HC-KAR

claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.20,55,000/-

together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced

compensation amount, from the date of petition till its

realization. Hence, the following -

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.

ii) The impugned judgment and award passed

in MVC No.6795/2018 dated 03.02.2020 by the III

Additional Judge and Member, MACT, Court of