The Reliance General vs Mrs Sumithra S @ Suma
2025 Latest Caselaw 10932 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The Reliance General vs Mrs Sumithra S @ Suma on 8 December, 2025

                              -1-
                                      MFA No. 3979 of 2017



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

                          BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3979 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:

THE RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
NO.24, CENTENARY BUILDING,
EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     MRS. SUMITHRA S @ SUMA
       W/O LATE SHIVAMANICKAM J
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

2.     KUMARI POOJA S
       D/O LATE SHIVAMANICKAM J
       AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

3.     MASTER PRASHANTH S
       S/O LATE SHIVAMANICKAM J
       AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS

       ALL ARE R/AT
       NO.38, 2ND CROSS,
       DR. S. KUMAR LAYOUT,
       1ST BLOCK,
       NAGAIAHNAPALYA,
       M.S. NAGAR POST
       BANGALORE 560 033.
                           -2-
                                      MFA No. 3979 of 2017



     RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE
     MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER
     AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE
     1ST RESPONDENT SMT. SUMITHRA S @ SUMA

4.   MR. ARUNKUMAR K.M.
     S/O MUNINANJAPPA
     NO.792,
     SHOBA ADAMUKANNAMANGALA,
     KADUGODI,
     BANGALORE 560 067.


                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA E.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1;
V/O DT:12.01.2023 NOTICE TO R4 IS H/S)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS IN MVC NO.4308/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XX ADDITIONAL
CHIEF    METROPOLITAN    MAGISTRATE       AND     M.A.C.T.,
BENGALURU (SCCH-24) AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DT:31.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.4308/2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
AND XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND
M.A.C.T BENGLAURU (SCCH -24) AND MODIFY THE AWARD IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

      THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   10.11.2025     AND    COMING    ON    FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
                               -3-
                                       MFA No. 3979 of 2017



                      CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company

challenging the impugned judgment and award

31.03.2017 passed by the XXII Additional Small Causes

Judge and XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and

MACT (for short 'the Tribunal'), in M.V.C.No.4308/2015,

awarding a sum of Rs.16,11,000/- with interest at 8% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of realization on

account of the death of one Shivamanickam J., who was

driving motor cycle bearing No.KA-05-EB-7678 from

R.M.Nagar side to T.C.Palya side in a road traffic accident

that occurred on 04.04.2015 at about 9:40 p.m. due to

rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry bearing

No.KA-53-B-1188.

2. The claimants have filed the petition under

section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the MV Act'

for short) claiming the compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- on

account of death of Shivamanickam J., in the Motor vehicle

accident.

3. After issuance of notice, the respondent

No.1/Insurance Company has appeared through its

counsel and filed statement of objection. Respondent

No.2/owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and

was placed ex-parte.

4. In order to substantiate the case of the

claimant, the claimant No.1 got herself examined as PW-1

and one witness got examined as PW-2 and got marked

documents at Exs.P1 to P14. On the other hand,

respondents neither examined nor adduced any evidence.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Tribunal framed the issues and held that the Insurance

Company and the owner of the offending vehicle are

jointly and severally liable to pay a total compensation of

sum of Rs.16,11,000/- to the claimants with interest at

the rate of 8% per annum form the date of petition, till the

date of realization.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant - Insurance Company that the Tribunal, erred in

holding that the accident was solely due to the rash and

negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. KA-53-B-1188

(offending vehicle), even though the defence was that the

deceased, while riding Motorcycle No.KA-05-EB-7678 from

R.M.Nagar towards T.C.Palya near Arun Ice Cream, had

come to the extreme right of the road and dashed against

the lorry moving correctly on the left. Reference is made

to the spot sketch at Ex.P-3, which shows that there was

12 ft. wide road on the left side of the deceased and

submits that the deceased was at least 50% negligent in

occurrence of the accident.

7. The appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to

appreciate that there was no eyewitness to the incident

and the only deposition relied upon was that of PW-1, the

wife of the deceased, who admittedly was neither

complainant nor present at the spot. It is further urged

that the complainant, one Verghese, was not at the scene

and filed the complaint only at 23:00 hours as per the

direction of the police and the police filed FIR and

subsequent investigation is doubtful. Further, police

records were prepared to suit the claimants and ought not

to have been relied upon mechanically. Despite these

infirmities, the Tribunal fixed entire negligence on the

driver of the offending vehicle, ignoring the defence

evidence and circumstances which demonstrated

contributory negligence of the deceased.

8. With regard to quantum, the appellant assails

the finding of monthly income at Rs.8,000/-, despite the

Tribunal itself holding that occupation and income were

not proved. It is submitted that PW-2, the alleged

employer, admitted in cross-examination that the vehicle

was in the name of another person as per Ex.P-14, that he

was not authorized to depose, maintained no records of

salary, did not know the contents of Ex.P-10 (salary

certificate) and had only signed the documents prepared

by the claimants. Notwithstanding these findings, the

Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects and adopted

an annual income of Rs.1,44,000/- after deductions to

compute loss of dependency at Rs.15,36,000/- applying

multiplier at '16', though the age of the deceased was

consistently shown as 37 years in the claim petition,

complaint, post-mortem and inquest reports, the Tribunal

ought to have applied multiplier at '15'. The reliance on

the ration card at Ex.P-12 was made and the age of the

deceased was taken as 35 years instead of 37 years.

9. It is contended that the future prospects are not

applicable unless the employment of the deceased is

permanent and duly proved and the matter itself has been

referred to a larger Bench. Further, the future prospects

cannot be awarded unless permanent employment and

future earning potential are proved by cogent evidence.

The appellant therefore submits that the addition of 50%

to income is contrary.

10. It is lastly submitted that even under

conventional heads, the amounts awarded are exorbitant,

and that interest at 8% per annum has been awarded

without reasons. On proper appreciation, the appellant

contends that after considering 30% contributory

negligence, adopting multiplier 15 for admitted age 37

years and deleting the 50% future prospects, the just

compensation would not exceed Rs.10,35,000/-, leaving

Rs.7,24,500/- payable after deduction. It is therefore

urged that the impugned award granting Rs.16,11,000/- is

exorbitant by Rs.8,86,500/-, arbitrary in computation.

11. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side

and perused the material on record.

12. Considering the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the

trial Court records, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is exorbitant and the same needs to be

reconsidered by this Court.

13. The Tribunal has erred in taking the notional

income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. The

salary certificate at Ex.P.10 produced by the claimants

cannot be considered as per the evidence of PW-2,

employer of the deceased. The accident has taken place

in the year 2010 and as per the chart prepared by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, notional income

of the deceased is taken at Rs.5,500/- per month. As the

deceased was aged 37 years as per the PM report, 40%

has to be added to the income of the deceased towards

future prospects. The multiplier applicable is '15'. Since

there were three dependants at the time of accident, 1/3rd

of his income has to be deducted towards personal

expenses. Accordingly, on re-determination of the 'loss of

dependency', the same works out to be:

5,500 + 40% x 12 x 15 x 2/3 = Rs.9,24,000/-

14. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of

Rs.60,000/- towards 'loss of love and affection' and 'loss of

consortium' to the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Hence, a sum

of Rs.40,000/- each is awarded. Therefore, the

respondent Nos.1 to 3 are entitled totally for a sum of

Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3) under the said heads.

15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of

Rs.15,000/- towards 'transportation, funeral and

obsequies ceremony', which is just and reasonable.

16. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation

under the head 'loss of estate'. Hence, it is just and

- 10 -

proper to award compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the

said head.

17. In summary, the total compensation re-

determined by this Court under various heads are as

follows:

1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 9,24,000/-

2. Loss of consortium and love : Rs. 1,20,000/-

and affection

3. Transportation of dead : Rs. 15,000/- body & obsequies ceremony

4. Loss of estate : Rs. 15,000/-

TOTAL : Rs. 10,74,000/-

18. The total compensation re-determined by this

Court works out to Rs.10,74,000/- as against

Rs.16,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The respondent

Nos.1 to 3 - claimants are entitled for total compensation

of Rs.10,74,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6%

per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date

of filing of the petition till realization.

- 11 -