Karnataka High Court
M/S Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt T Usha Rani on 2 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3774 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5177 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3774 OF 2018 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5177 OF 2015 (MV-D)
IN MFA No.3774/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. T. USHARANI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
W/O. LATE. THANGARAJU,
2. KUM. SELVI @ SYLVIA T.
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
D/O. LATE. THANGARAJU,
3. SRI. SALOMAN @ SALOMAN RAJ T.
Digitally AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
signed by S/O. LATE. THANGARAJU,
NIRMALA
DEVI
Location: THE APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE
HIGH COURT R/AT. NO.11, 2ND CROSS,
OF SONNENAHALLI, SHANTHINAGAR,
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560047.
AND PRESENTLY,
R/AT. KENCHANAHALLI COLONY,
KENCHENAHALLI,
MAVINAKERE POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.K.VASANTH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3774 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5177 of 2015
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI. AKBAR KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O OMER KHAN,
R/AT. NO.19-2-230/6/C/1,
BHADURIPURA, HYDERABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE - 500 064.
(RC OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.KA-01-B-5781)
2. M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
NO.18, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING,
CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER
SMT. PHILOMINA,
W/O. LATE. CHINNASWAMY,
SINCE DEAD.
(NOTE: SMT. PHILOMINA, BEING MOTHER OF THE DECEASED
THANGARAJU, THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN MVC NO. 7909/2010
DIED ON 13.06.2014, LEAVING BEHIND THE APPELLANTS
HEREIN AS HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE AND HENCE SHE IS
NOT MADE A PARTY IN THIS APPEAL)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK.N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 27.05.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED26.05.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7909/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, (SCCH-5),
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3774 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5177 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN MFA NO.5177/2015:
BETWEEN:
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO. 18, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
NOW AT M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
NOW REPRESENTED BY
MANAGER LEGAL
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. T. USHARANI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
W/O. LATE. THANGARAJU,
2. KUM. SELVI @ SYLVIA T.
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
D/O. LATE. THANGARAJU,
3. CHI. SALOMAN @ SALOMAN RAJ T.
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. THANGARAJU,
PETITIONER NO.3 IS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. T. USHA RANI,
THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN
ALL ARE R/AT. NO.11, 2ND CROSS,
SONNENAHALLI, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560047.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3774 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5177 of 2015
HC-KAR
4. AKBAR KHAN
S/O OMER KHAN
R/AT NO. 19-2-230/6/C/1
BHADURIPURA, HYDERABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE - 560 064
5. SMT. PHILOMINA
W/O LATE CHINNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT C/O KATARI P.T. KRISHNA MURTHY,
B.H.ROAD, 3RD CROSS,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
(MOTHER OF THE DECEASED)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.K.VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
V/O DATED 22/08/2017, R1 TO R3 ARE LRS'S OF R5;
V/O DATED 09/04/2025 IN MFA NO. 2774/2018,
APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED AGAINST R4)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.5.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7909/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.15,79,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
MFA No. 3774 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5177 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Both the appeals are filed calling in question the
judgment and award dated 26.05.2015 passed in MVC
No.7909/2010 by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge
and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) at
Bengaluru. Hence, both the appeals are taken up together
for consideration.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that,
claiming compensation for the death of deceased in a road
traffic accident which occurred on 29.07.2010, the wife
and children of the deceased instituted claim proceedings
arraying the owner and insurer of the offending bus as
respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as mother of the deceased
as respondent No.3. The owner of the offending bus
remained exparte before the Tribunal. The claim
proceedings were contested by the insurer of the bus.
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
HC-KAR
4. The Tribunal by the judgment and award dated
26.05.2015 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded
a total compensation of Rs.15,79,000/- together with
interest @ 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, MFA No.5177/2015
is filed by the insurer and MFA No.3774/2018 is filed by
the claimants.
5. Learned counsel - Sri.Ashok N Patil appearing
for the appellant/insurer assailing the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal vehemently contends that the
accident being a head on collision between the vehicle that
was being driven by the deceased and the bus, the
Tribunal ought to have held that both the drivers were
negligent in causing the accident in question. It is further
contended that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on
the higher side as well as deduction of 1/4th made by the
Tribunal is also excessive. Hence, learned counsel seeks
for allowing the above appeal and granting of the reliefs
sought for.
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
HC-KAR
6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.K.K.Vasanth
appearing for the claimants justifying the finding of the
Tribunal on negligence, contends that the charge sheet
having been filed against the driver of the bus and the
insurer not having examined any eye witness, the finding
of the Tribunal is just and proper. It is further contended
that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the
lower side since future prospects has not been awarded.
Hence, he seeks for enhancement of quantum of
compensation.
7. The submissions of both the learned counsels
have been considered and the material on record including
the records of the Tribunal have been perused.
8. The questions that arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal on
negligence, is erroneous and liable to be
interfered with?
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
HC-KAR
(ii) Whether the quantum of the compensation
assessed by the Tribunal is just and
proper?
RE. QUESTION No.(i):
9. The claimants in the claim petition have averred
that when the deceased was driving the Eicher Van from
Anantapuram to Gutti, a bus being driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner, came on the wrong side of the
road and hit the vehicle being driven by the deceased.
The insurer of the bus in the statement of objections has
specifically averred that the negligence in causing the
accident is on the part of the driver of Eicher Van. The
claimant No.1 was examined as PW1, who is not an eye
witness. However, the claimants have produced copy of
the FIR (Ex.P-1) and charge sheet (Ex.P-9). The driver of
bus has been charge sheeted under Section 337 and
304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The official of insurer
has been examined as RW1, who is not an eye witness.
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
HC-KAR
10. Learned counsel for the insurer relying on the
IMV report (Ex.P-2) contends that damages have occurred
to both the vehicles and that width of the road is 7 metres.
Although it is vehement contention of the learned counsel
for the insurer that the accident admittedly being a head
on collision and damages have occurred to both the
vehicles involved in the accident, it is relevant to note that
despite a specific defence having been taken that the
accident has occurred solely due to the negligence of the
driver of the Eicher Van, the driver of bus has not been
examined. The claimants have produced the charge sheet
(Ex.P-9), which demonstrates that consequent to the
complaint lodged and FIR registered, after investigation
the police authorities have filed the charge sheet against
the driver of the bus. The insurer has also not appointed
its own investigator or demonstrated as to how the
investigation carried out by the police authorities is in any
manner faulty.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
HC-KAR
11. The Tribunal upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, taking note of the fact that the
charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the bus,
has recorded a finding that the driver of the bus was
negligent in causing the accident in question.
12. The insurer has failed in demonstrating that the
said finding is, in any manner, erroneous and liable to be
interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. Hence,
Question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in
the negative.
RE. QUESTION No.(ii):
13. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the
deceased as 51 years. However, it is forthcoming from
the voters ID card (Ex.P-8(a)) that date of birth of the
deceased is 27.06.1964. The Post Mortem Report (Ex.P-4)
also discloses that the age of deceased stated therein is 46
years. In view of the same, the age of the deceased is
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
HC-KAR
assessed as 46 years and the multiplier to be applied is
'13'.
14. The claimants have averred in the claim petition
that the deceased was the driver of a Volvo bus and
earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The claimants have also
produced Driving Training Certificate (Ex.P-7) issued by
the Volvo India Pvt. Ltd. that the deceased has attended
the Driver Orientation Programme at the Driver Training
Centre of the company. Learned counsel for the claimants
placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of SMT. NEETA KALLAPPA KADOLKAR
AND ORS. ETC. v. DIV. MANAGER, MSRTC,
KOLHAPUR1 contends that the Tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month keeping
in mind the finding recorded in the said judgment. It is
noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even
in the absence of a salary slip/certificate, since the
deceased was a skilled in the job (as a carpenter in the
2015 AIR SCW 832
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
HC-KAR
said case) and keeping in mind the Minimum Wages Act,
1948, Notification by the State of Karnataka, the income
of the deceased was assessed in the said case at
Rs.12,000/-. Hence, assessment made by the Tribunal of
the income deceased at Rs.12,000/- is just and proper.
15. Future prospects is required to be assessed at
25% in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
vs. PRANAY SETHI2. Further the claimant Nos.1 to 3 are
the wife, children of the deceased. The respondent No.3 is
the mother of deceased, who has also been awarded with
10% of the compensation by the Tribunal. Hence,
deduction of 1/4th made by the Tribunal is just and proper.
16. In view of the aforementioned, the 'loss of
dependency' is reassessed as (Rs.12,000/- + 25% - 1/4th
x 12 x 13) Rs.17,55,000/- as against Rs.14,04,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
HC-KAR
17. The 'loss of consortium' is required to be
awarded in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LIMITED vs. NANU RAM & OTHERS3 at Rs.40,000/- for
each of the dependents together with increment at 20%.
Hence, 'loss of consortium' is reassessed at Rs.1,92,000/-
(Rs.48,000/- x 4) as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
18. The compensation towards 'loss of estate' and
'funeral expenses' is to be awarded at Rs.15,000/- each
together with increment at 20%. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs.18,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of estate' and a sum
of Rs.18,000/- is awarded towards 'funeral expenses'.
19. In view of compensation awarded under the
head 'loss of consortium', compensation awarded under
'loss of love and affection' is set aside.
2018 ACJ 2782
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
HC-KAR
20. It is stated by the claimants that mother of
deceased (respondent No.3) before the Tribunal died on
13.06.2014. Hence, the compensation as awarded by the
Tribunal and as reassessed by this Court will be required
to be paid to the claimants.
21. Hence, the compensation is reassessed as
follows:
Sl. Particulars Amount Amount
No. Awarded by Awarded by
the Tribunal this Court.
1 Loss of dependency 14,04,000/- 17,55,000/-
2 Loss of consortium 20,000/- 1,92,000/-
3 Loss of love and
80,000/- --
affection
4 Loss of estate 60,000/- 18,000/-
5 Funeral expenses 15,000/- 18,000/-
Total 15,79,000/- 19,83,000/-
22. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.4,04,000/- (Rs.19,83,000/-
- Rs.15,79,000/-).
23. In view of the aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
i. MFA No.3774/2018 is partly allowed;
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
HC-KAR
ii. MFA No.5177/2015 is dismissed;
iii. The judgment and award dated 26.05.2015
passed in MVC No.7909/2010 by the VIII
Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) at
Bengaluru, is hereby modified to the extent
stated herein. In all other aspects, the
judgment and award of the Tribunal remains
unaltered;
iv. The claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.19,83,000/- together with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the
petition till its realization as against
Rs.15,79,000/- awarded by the Tribunal;
v. The claimants will not be entitled for interest
on the enhanced compensation of
Rs.4,04,000/- for a period 978 days being the
delay in filing the appeal, having regard to the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
HC-KAR
order dated 09.04.2025 passed in MFA
No.3774/2015;
vi. 60% of the compensation together with
accrued interest shall be payable to claimant
No.1 (wife) and 20% each to claimant Nos.2
and 3 (children);
vii. From out of the compensation apportioned to
the claimants, 50% of the same shall be
digitally released to the claimants and the
balance 50% shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in
any nationalized bank of the choice of the
claimants for a period of two years insofar as
claimant No.1 (wife) is concerned and for a
period of three years insofar as claimant Nos.2
and 3 (children) are concerned. The Fixed
Deposits together with accrued interest, upon
maturity, shall be digitally released to the
respective claimants without any specific
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23611
HC-KAR
orders in that regard either from the Tribunal
or from this Court;
viii. The amount deposited in MFA No.5177/2015
together with the records be transmitted to the
Tribunal forthwith;
ix. The insurer shall deposit the balance
compensation within six weeks;
x. The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly.
No costs.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
DR
