[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Muniswamy vs Sri Jagadeesha on 8 December, 2025
-1-
MFA No. 5718 of 2019
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.5718 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MUNISWAMY
S/O DEVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2. SMT. ANTHONAMMA
W/O MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. KUM.AMBIKA
D/O MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT
HASUDI VILLAGE,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-573 206.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI JAGADEESHA
S/O LATE M.G.LAKSHMANAIKA,
MAJOR, R/AT II CROSS,
PENSION MOHALLA, B.H.ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA CITY TALUK AND DISTRICT,
PIN-573 206.
2. IFFCO TOKIO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, IFFCO TOWER,
PLOT NO.3, SECTOR 29, GURGAON,
-2-
MFA No. 5718 of 2019
PIN NO.122 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI D.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.681/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE 1ST ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VII AT
SHIMOGA DISTRICT, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS
CLAIMED IN THE AFORESAID MVC CASE UP TO RS.21,70,000/-
AND GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS
COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 17.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants directed against
the judgment and award dated 13.11.2018, in MVC
No.681/2014 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge
& Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - VII at
Shivamogga, (for short 'Tribunal'), .
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
The brief facts of the case before the Tribunal are
that:
3. On 15.06.2013, at about 3.00 a.m., deceased
Sathisha was working as a Mechanic and along with other
employees in order to attend marriage at
Shravanabelagola left Shivamogga in a Maruthi Omni Van
bearing Reg.No.KA-14-N-510 at 11 p.m. and when they
were proceeding near Madihalli village near Tiptur, at
about 3.00 a.m., on 16.06.2013, due to rash and
negligent driving of Mahesh, the van toppled on the road
in a curve. Due to the said accident, the inmates of the
vehicle sustained grievous injuries and Sathisha died at
the spot and the driver of the Van succumbed while being
shifted to hospital. The claimants are his parents and
sister. Hence, claimants filed claim petition under Section
166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation of
Rs.21,70,000/-.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and
2 have appeared through their respective counsel and filed
their separate statement of objections. Respondent No.1
in his statement of objections has contended that the
offending Maruthi Omni Van bearing Reg.No.KA-14-N-510
was owned by his father namely M.G.Lakshman Naika.
His father died on 09.02.2012 and the same was informed
to M/s.Shruthi Motors as well as respondent No.2. The
M/s.Shruthi Motors, the authorized agent got the said
vehicle insured with the respondent No.2 on 05.02.2013
vide policy No.88273919 and was valid upto 04.02.2014.
After the death of his father, respondent No.1 has
renewed the insurance policy. The said offending vehicle
was entrusted to deceased Mahesh by M/s.Shruthi Motors
in order to attend the marriage. The inmates of the
offending vehicle were the workers of M/s.Shruthi Motors
and hence, contends that M/s.Shruthi Motors and
respondent No.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation amount. He has further contended that he
has issued legal notice dated 24.01.2014 against
M/s.Shruthi Motors and respondent No.2 to pay the
damages caused to his vehicle and reply dated 06.02.2014
was given choosing to repudiate the claim of the
respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has also filed a
complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum
at Shivamogga under Complaint No.468/14 but the said
complaint was dismissed by the said forum holding that it
does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection
Act. Hence, prays to saddle the liability on M/s.Shruthi
Motors and respondent No.2.
5. The respondent No.2 in its objection statement
denied the averments of the claim petition and contended
that the driver of the offending vehicle Mahesh was not
having valid and effective driving licence to drive the
offending vehicle and hence, there is breach of policy
conditions and prays to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The
petitioner No.2 was examined as PW-1 and got marked
documents at Exs.P1 to P-11. The respondent No.2 has
examined one witness as RW-1 and both the respondents
have got marked documents at Exs.R.1 to R.4.
7. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the
documents, the Tribunal has allowed the petition in part
and awarded compensation of Rs.10,12,200/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the
parties and perused the material on record.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the occurrence of accident and death of said Sathisha is
not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider
the same. The contention of the claimants is that the
Tribunal ought to have taken notional income as
Rs.8,000/- per month following the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. But, it has
taken income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore,
compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' may be
re-calculated taking notional income as Rs.8,000/- per
month as the accident is of the year 2013. He further
submits that amount of compensation awarded under the
conventional heads is on the lower side. It is also
contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not
adding 40% of future prospects to the notional income
without considering or appreciating the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is also contended by
him that the Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Others
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and reiterated by the
Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.1100/2019 &
connected matters disposed of on 12.06.2019 in awarding
compensation towards 'loss of consortium'. He therefore
requests this Court to enhance the compensation by
modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal and
enhance the compensation.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2
vehemently contends that Tribunal has awarded just and
reasonable amount of compensation and there is no need
to enhance the same. Respondent No.1 has contended
that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on him
and dismissing the petition against the respondent No.2
and hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. It is contended that the deceased was working
as a Mechanic in M/s.Shruthi Motors, Shivamogga and was
earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The accident
has taken place in the year 2013 and as per the chart
prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,
income of the deceased is taken at Rs.8,000/- per month.
As the deceased was aged 20 years as on the date of
accident, 40% has to be added to the income of the
deceased towards future prospects as per Pranay sethi
supra. The multiplier applicable is '18'. Since the
deceased was a bachelor, 50% 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:
8,000 + 40% x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.12,09,600/-
12. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.60,000/- towards 'loss of love and affection' to the
appellants. Hence, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each is awarded.
Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled for a sum
of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3) as per the law laid
down in Magma case supra.
13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.30,000/- towards 'transportation of dead body,
funeral expenses charges and miscellaneous expenses'
and Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate'. Hence, the
same are just and reasonable.
- 10 -
14. Thus, the total compensation re-determined by
this Court under various heads are as follows:
1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 12,09,600/-
2. Loss of consortium : Rs. 1,20,000/-
3. Transportation of dead : Rs. 30,000/-
body, funeral expenses
charges and miscellaneous
expenses
4. Loss of estate : Rs. 15,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 13,74,600/-
15. The total compensation re-determined by this
Court works out to Rs.13,74,600/- as against
Rs.10,12,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants -
claimants are entitled for total compensation of
Rs.13,74,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of
filing of the petition till realization.
Regarding pay and recovery:
16. In the present case, the respondent No.2 has
taken up specific defence before the Tribunal that it is not
- 11 -
liable to pay the compensation as respondent No.1 has
violated the policy conditions as he being the owner of the
offending vehicle has let out the Van for rent to M/s.
Shruthi Motors on rental basis and was earning income
from the said car and even the driver of the offending
vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence
at the time of accident. To prove its defence, it has got
examined the Branch Manager of the insurance company,
who in his examination-in-chief has deposed that
offending vehicle with seating capacity of eight was
insured with insurance company with a package policy
vide Policy No.88273919 valid upto 04.02.2014 which
stood in the name of Lakshman Naika. It has also
contended that the respondent No.1 had approached the
District Consumers Dispute Redressal Forum at
Shivamogga in C.C.No.468/2014 which was dismissed as
there was no consumer relationship between the
complainant and the insurance company. It has
contended that the respondent No.1 had leased out
offending vehicle to M/s.Shruthi Motors and the said
- 12 -
company in turn had given the vehicle to deceased
Mahesh, who was driving the vehicle without holding valid
and effective driving licence. Hence, respondent No.1 has
breached the terms and conditions of the policy.
Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in exonerating the
Insurance Company from paying compensation to the
claimants. However, as per Sub-Section (2) of Section 149
of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act', for short) when the Insurance Company has
established the fact that the offending vehicle was leased
out for commercial purpose and entrusted the vehicle to a
driver, who was not holding valid driving licence, then as
per Sub-sections (1), (4), (7) of Section 149 of the Act,
the Insurance Company shall satisfy the claim in respect of
third parties and then recover the same from the owner of
the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the order of pay and
recovery is made as per the principle of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of PAPPU AND
OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER
reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208; NATIONAL
- 13 -
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARAN
SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 3 SCC
297 and also as per the full bench decision of this Court
in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED VS. YELLAVVA AND ANOTHER reported in
2020 ACJ 2560. Accordingly, an order of pay and
recovery is made. To this extent, the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is modified.
17. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal in MVC.No.681/2014, dated
13.11.2018, passed by the I Additional Senior
Civil Judge & Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal - VII, at Shivamogga is modified;
iii) The appellants - claimants are entitled for
total compensation of Rs.13,74,600/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on
- 14 -
the enhanced compensation from the date of
filing of the petition till realization;
iv) The compensation amount along with accrued
interest if any, shall be deposited by the
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company,
within eight weeks from the date of filing of
the petition till realization and recover the
same from the owner of the offending vehicle;
v) Apportionment and disbursement of the
compensation amount shall be as per the
impugned Award of the Tribunal.
vi) Amount in deposit along with accrued
interest, if any shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal.
vii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the judgment passed by this Court
forthwith without any delay.
viii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
MH/-
