[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S. New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Mrs. Mala. M on 16 December, 2025
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
MFA No. 3562 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 6032 of 2023
RESERVED ON : 28.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3562 OF 2023 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6032 OF 2023 (MV-D)
IN MFA No. 3562/2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
THE MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL AND BRANCH OFFICE,
JLB ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM,
MYSURU - 570 004.
REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE,
THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB,
MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
II FLOOR, NO.9, M G ROAD,
BANGALROE - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY N L SAI SUDHA,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS. MALA. M,
W/O LATE H V GOVINDA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
-2-
MFA No. 3562 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 6032 of 2023
2. MR. YASHWANTH G SHETTY,
S/O LATE H V GOVINDA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
3. MR. NIRANJAN G SHETTY,
S/O LATE H V GOVINDA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
4. MRS. RUKHMINAMMA,
W/O LATE VENKATASUBBA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT,
NO. 73/8, 'C' BLOCK,
BEHING RING ROAD,
ANANDANAGARA,
MYSURU - 570 022.
5. MR. PRABHAKER SHETTY T,
M/S SOWKUR DURGAPARAMESHWARI FORM,
NO.583, HAROHALLI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
BANNUR ROAD,
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
V/O DATED 30.08.2023 R1 TO R3 ARE LR's OF
THE DECEASED R4, R5 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
27.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.547/2017 ON THE FILE
OF MACT, MYSURU (IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL
SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT,
MYSURU), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.46,58,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
-3-
MFA No. 3562 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 6032 of 2023
IN MFA NO. 6032/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MALA M.,
W/O LATE H.V. GOVINDA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
2. YASHWANTH G. SETTY,
S/O LATE H.V. GOVINDA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
3. NIRANJAN G. SETTY,
S/O LATE H.V. GOVINDA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRABHAKAR SHETTY T.,
M/S SOWKUR DURGAPARAMESHWARI FORM,
NO 583, HAROHALLI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI, BANNUR ROAD,
MYSURU
MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 010.
2. THE MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
DIVISIONAL AND BRANCH OFFICE,
JLB ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM,
MYSURU - 570 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2
V/O DATED 05.09.2023 NOTICE TO R1
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
27.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 547/2017 ON THE
FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
MYSURU (IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER),
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-4-
MFA No. 3562 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 6032 of 2023
THESE APPEALS ARE, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)
These two appeals being MFA.No.3562/2023
and MFA.No.6032/2023 are by the Insurer as well as
claimant, calling in question the judgment and award
dated 27.09.2022 in MVC.No.547/2017 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru
['Tribunal' for short]. The Insurer is on the ground of
liability and quantum, and the claimant seeks
enhancement.
2. Heard Ms.Geetha Raj, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, and Sri. Shantharaj. K,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Though
Notice to respondent No.5 in MFA No.3562/2023 is
served, but unrepresented. The Notice to this
respondent in MFA.No.6032/2023 [the respondent
No.1] is dispensed with vide order dated 05.09.2023.
3. Ms. Geetha Raj on four counts has placed
her arguments:
(i) Complainant was not cited as witness to
substantiate the claim of the claimants.
(ii) Witness No.2, Prashanth Kumar, is a
stock witness with the police.
(iii) Though PW-2 has given evidence in the
claim petition in favour of the claimant,
on the manner of accident alleging the
involvement of vehicle and the reason for
the accident, but in the criminal case,
completely turned hostile deposing that he
did not see any accident. In the absence of
any materials, except the statement of
Prashanth Kumar, the police in collusion
filed charge sheet by implicating the
vehicle of the insurer, though the owner of
the insurer appeared, filed statement of
objection and led his evidence as well as
the evidence of the driver of the lorry
involved in the accident against the facts
narrated by the eye witness.
(iv) As per the statement of PW-2 Prashanth
Kumar, the accident had occurred at
05.45 p.m. on 26.04.2017. However, as
per the records, placed by the insured the
vehicle left Sowkur Durgaparameswari
Poultry Farm at 06.00 p.m. in the evening
and reached Mangaluru.
Ms. Geetha further submits that as per
the evidence of owner as well as driver of
the lorry, the lorry was transporting 11
Tonnes of eggs from Sowkur
Durgaparameswari Poultry Farm, owned
by the insured and reached the
destination i.e, Mangaluru safely without
any damages. If the contentions of PW-2,
are taken as it is which assumes
importance in the matter, the reason
being the witness has stated that the
driver of lorry has driven the lorry in a zig-
zag manner and not the motorcycle, when
trying to overtake it and then dashed
against road divider and stopped. If that is
to be considered, there must be damages
to the goods contained in the lorry owing
to the nature of goods i.e., eggs. However,
the entire load was safely transported to
the Mangaluru destination. In these
circumstances, in view of admissions by
the witness PW-2 that, he had earlier
given complaint in respect of other
accidental cases with the police and also
given evidence before the Court, pellucidly
shows that the witness is a stock witness
with the police and his case is a pure case
of implantation of vehicle. With this
Madam Geetha sought to allow the appeal
and exonerate the insurer, holding that
the offending lorry is not at all involved in
the accident.
4. In contrast to these submissions,
Sri.Shantharaj, submits that the evidence in terms of
Indian Evidence Act, be read as a whole and not in
isolation. The claimants have examined, apart from
an eyewitness [PW-2] the Investigating Officer, who
has registered the case and conducted initial
investigation. This witness is examined as PW-3, and
who has handed over further investigation to RW-3.
5. RW-3 who has filed charge sheet, against
the driver of the lorry for causing the accident due to
his actionable negligent and rash driving, though
treated as hostile and cross-examined, nothing is
elicited either to dispel the evidence of the said
witness or to dislodge the entire case of the claimant.
6. Sri.Shantharaj, relying on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Alok Kumar Ghosh Vs
The New India Assurance Company Limited and
Another1, stressed on paragraph No.19, to contend
that the unnecessary appeals by the insurance
Civil Appeal No.10482/2017 dated 09.10.2025
company rising technical pleas more so, when they
do not deny their ultimate liability under the contract
of insurance has been viewed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court seriously imposing cost of Rs.50,000/-. In the
case on hand, the Insurer though suffered an order
on contest, merely on technicality and reading certain
stray statements but not admitted as admissions on
hyper-technicality, laid challenge to the award
seeking exoneration from liability in the teeth of
contract of insurance, when there is no dispute
regarding liability of the insurance to pay
compensation be dealt with exemplary cost while
dismissing the appeal. Accordingly, sought to dismiss
the appeal filed by the appellant-insurer.
7. So far as enhancement is concerned, Sri.
Shantharaj, submits that as per the salary slips
produced at Ex.P10 and P11 for the month of March,
2017 and April, 2017 both shows the next increment
due is May 2017, but due to the untimely death of
the employee on 26.04.2017, the income shown only
uptil the date of accident in April 2017 pay slip, but
- 10 -
the Tribunal has rightly taken the income shown at
Rs.46,688/- as per gross salary of pay slip of March
2017. The salary certificate of March, 2017 that the
gross salary is Rs.46,688/- including entire Basic
Pay, Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowance
and other allowances. The Tribunal though
considered the income as per the pay slip of March
2017, at Rs.46,688/-, but failed to consider the
future prospectus. The deceased was 54 years and
having 6 more years of service and the employment
being of permanent keeping in mind the increments
at least twice in an year, the loss of salary on the date
of superannuation may not be less than 50% of the of
the existing salary. The Tribunal has missed this
aspect of the matter and taken 15% towards future
prospectus and deducted income tax at source and
1/3rd towards personal expenses, though there are
four claimants the same requires consideration. The
claimant Nos.2 and 3, though were major,
considering their age, they cannot be said as not
dependent on the income of the father. The mere age
- 11 -
of majority is not a ground to keep them out of
dependency.
8. Since there are 4 claimants, considering
the fact that the deceased was the sole breadwinner
of the family, considering the cost of education and
other family necessities, the personal deductions
towards the deceased must have been taken at 1/4th
instead of 1/3rd taken by the Tribunal. He further
submits that in view of settled position of law, 10%
escalation be awarded towards the conventional
heads, for each completed 3 years from 2017. With
these, Sri Shantharaj, sought to allow the appeal and
enhance the compensation.
9. As rightly contended by Sri.Shantharaj,
the evidence be read in its entirety and not in
isolation. Even there are certain admissions per
learned counsel for the insurer, the entire evidence
with respect to involvement of vehicle causing
accident cannot be brushed aside. Though the owner
and driver of the insured lorry have been examined
as witnesses and they have produced the copy alleged
- 12 -
to be the receipt for having delivered the load of eggs,
the person- i.e., acknowledgee of said receipt has not
been examined to substantiate their claim and the
seal appearing in the receipt. No records, except the
said invoice has been placed on record to
substantiate the contentions of the insured that the
vehicle left poultry farm at 06.00 p.m. In the absence
of reliable evidential documents, no probative value
could be given to the evidence of the insured as well
as his driver. Neither the insurer nor the driver have
taken any pain to call in question the charge sheet
filed, though ultimately the case ended in acquittal. It
is trite that an acquittal in a criminal case has no
bearing on the claim petition as the acquittal resulted
on giving benefit of doubt.
10. In the proceedings as in the case on hand,
the proof of evidence is on preponderance of
probabilities, the Tribunal, after considering the
entire material placed before it, has come to an
conclusion that, it is the driver of the offending lorry
is responsible for the accident, resulting in untimely
- 13 -
death of Sri.H.V.Govinda Shetty. In these
circumstances, the grounds taken by the Insurer
cannot be countenanced and requires to be rejected,
and is accordingly rejected, confirming the findings of
the Tribunal on Issue No.1 against the driver of the
offending lorry.
11. So far as quantum is concerned, in the
absence of any proof having been placed by the
claimants regarding the actual raisein the salary by
means of increments as contented by Sri.Shantharaj,
in the case on hand we have to fall back on the dicta
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, considering
addition at the rate of 15% to the last pay drawn. The
Tribunal has rightly considered the income at
Rs.46,688/- as per the pay slip for the month of
March, 2017. Since the death has occurred
subsequent to closing of the earlier financial year, the
Assessment Year 2018-2019, be taken for applicable
tax deduction. In this the Tribunal has rightly taken
the Assessment year 2018 and 2019. Out of the gross
salary taken by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.200/-
- 14 -
towards professional tax required to be deducted, the
annual income of the deceased, after deduction of
Rs.200/- per month and Rs.2,400/- per year towards
professional tax, comes to Rs.5,57,856/-.
12. As per the income slab for the Assessment
year 2018-2019, upto Rs.2,50,000/- no tax could be
levied (There is no tax). As such any amount above
Rs.2,50,000/- and within Rs.5,00,000/-the tax
applicable is at 5%. The concept of standard
deductions for the first time was introduced by
amendment to Section 16(i)(a) of the Income Tax Act,
allowing the deductions of Rs.40,000/- or the
amount of salary whichever is less with effect from
01.04.2019, and by way of further amendment is
increased from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- with
effect from 01.04.2020. As such no standard
deductions were available for the Assessment year
2018-19. The tax payable at 5% on the sum of
Rs.3,07,856/- (5,57,856-2,50,000), comes to
Rs.15,392.08, a Cess at 3% if added, as prevailing for
the Assessment year, the tax on the net income
- 15 -
comes to Rs.15,841/-. The said tax is liable to be
deducted from Rs.5,57,856/-, then the total income
available is Rs.5,42,015/-. If 15% is added towards
future prospectus, the same would comes to
Rs.6,23,317/-.
13. As rightly contented by Sri.Shantaraju,
the deduction ought to have been 1/4th instead of
1/3rd, considering the age of claimant Nos.2 and 3,
who were only 22 and 20 years, at the time of death
of the deceased, therefore, the deduction towards
personal expenses must be taken as 1/4th and if
deducted, the loss of dependency annually would be
to Rs.4,67,488/-. As the deceased was 54 years on
the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier
applicable is '11'. Accordingly, applying the said
multiplier, the loss of dependency comes to
Rs.51,42,368/-. Though the conventional heads
awarded by the Tribunal are just and proper, but in
view of settled position of law, the claimants are
entitled for enhancement at the rate of 10% on the
- 16 -
conventional heads from 2017 for each completed 3
years. In the case on hand, they are entitled for 20%,
till the date of this judgment on the conventional
heads, which would come to Rs.38,000/-. For the
forgoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal requires re-determination and re-
consideration, which is as follows:
Sl. Heads Amount
No. Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 51,42,368-00
2. Loss of consortium 1,60,000-00
(40,000 x 4 = Rs.1,60,000)
3. Loss of estate 15,000-00
4. Funeral expenses 15,000-00
5. 10% escalation for 38,000-00
2 terms of 3 years each
TOTAL 53,70,368-00
Rounded off to 53,70,500-00
14. On re-determination, the claimants are
entitled for a sum of Rs.53,70,500/- as against
Rs.46,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. This Court
has re-appreciated the evidence to examine the
merits of the Insurer's grounds and this Court is not
persuaded to opine that the Insurer's appeal is
frivolous, as such no cost is imposed.
- 17 -
15. The re-determined compensation shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal by the appellant/insurer is
dismissed.
(ii) The amount in deposit shall be
transmitted to the concerned Tribunal
for disbursement.
(iii) The appeal by the claimants are
allowed-in-part, modifying the
judgment and award impugned herein
by re-determining the compensation at
Rs.53,70,500/- as against
Rs.46,58,000/.
(iv) The re-determined compensation shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per
- 18 -
annum from the date of petition till
realization.
(v) The respondent No.2/insurer shall
deposit the balance re-determined
compensation (since the amount in
deposit before this Court in the appeal
by insurer is ordered to be transmitted
to the Tribunal), along with accrued
interest stated supra before the
concerned tribunal within 6 weeks
from the date receipt of copy of this
order.
(vi) The apportionment and disbursement
is unaltered.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
RR
ct-vn
