Karnataka High Court
Smt S Dhanamma vs Mr R Kulandaival on 3 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
MFA No. 9021 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9021 OF 2013(MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9223 OF 2013(MV-D)
IN MFA No. 9021/2013
BETWEEN:
VENKATESH
@ VENKATESHWARA
S/O LAKSHMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
ADDAVARAPALLI VILLAGE,
KALIKARI MANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. MR.R. KULANDAIVAL,
S/O RAMASWAMY,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/O NO. 2/104, ALANGKATTU
KALLANAKATTU, VALASU POST,
KOMARAPALYAM
THIRUCHENGODU TALUK & DISTRICT
TAMILNADU STATE- 560 001.
(OWNER OF THE TUSKER LORRY
BEARING REG.NO. TN-34-F-5787)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
MFA No. 9021 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013
HC-KAR
2. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALIANCE
INSURANCE CO LTD
MANGALYA PUNARBHAV
# 132, BRIGADE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 025
VIDE COVER NOTE NO. 1233462
DATED 23/10/2009,
VALID FROM 24/10/2009 TO 23/10/2010
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
VIDE ORDER DATED 29.09.2015,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.3.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7152/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 9223/2013
BETWEEN:
SMT. S. DHANAMMA
W/O LATE SUBRAMANYAM
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDENT OF LAKSHMINARAYANASWAMY ROAD,
MUNNEKOLALU,
BANGALORE EAST,
BANGALORE-560 076
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR.R.KULANDAIVAL
S/O RAMASWAMY
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/O NO.2/104,
ALANGKATTU KALLANAKATTU,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
MFA No. 9021 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 9223 of 2013
HC-KAR
VALASU POST, KOMARAPALYAM,
THIRUCHENGODU TALUK & DISTRICT
TAMILNADU STATE - 677 211
(OWNER OF THE TUSKER LORRY BEARING
REG. NO.TN-34-F-5787)
2. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALIANCE
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MANGALYA PUNARBHAV
NO.132, BRIGADE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 025
VIDE COVER NOTE NO.1233462
DATED 23/10/2009,
VALID FROM 24/10/2009 TO 23/10/2010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.09.2015,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.03.2013 PASSED
IN MVC NO.6991/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT,
BANGALORE,DISMISSIG THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
These appeals arise out of common judgment and
award dated 26th March 2013, passed by the M.A.C.T.,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, (SCCH-10), (for
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
HC-KAR
short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.7152/2011 and 6991/2011.
Claimant in MVC No.7152/2011 filed the appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation and legal heirs of K.Ashok,
who died in the accident, filed the appeal challenging the
dismissal of their petition by the Tribunal. Both appeals
arise out of common judgment and hence taken up
together for disposal and common judgment is passed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal.
In MFA.No.9021/2013 :
3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 23.05.2010, at
about 9.30 p.m., claimant along with deceased K.Ashok
and another claimant in MVC.No.6990/2010, were
proceeding towards Srinagar of Palamner Town from
A.K.Street, on the motorcycle bearing registration
No.AP-03-E-8924. They met with an accident due to the
rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration
No.TN-34-F-5787 by its driver, as a result of which,
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
HC-KAR
claimant sustained grievous injuries. He had taken initial
treatment at Government Hospital, Palamner and
thereafter he took treatment at S.V.R.R. Hospital,
Tirupathi. He had spent Rs.40,000/- towards medical and
incidental expenses. With these reasons, claimant prayed
for enhancement of compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2/insurer of
the offending motorcycle denied the contents of the claim
petition. It is stated that accident had taken place due to
the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Therefore,
respondents are not liable to pay the compensation and its
liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the
police. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the
Tribunal framed necessary issues.
6. The Tribunal clubbed MVC.No.6990/2010,
MVC.No.6991/2010 along with MVC.No.7152/2011 and
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
HC-KAR
recorded the common evidence. Claimants in all
examined five witnesses as PW-1 to PW-5 and marked 20
documents from Exs.P-1 to P-20. On behalf of the
respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and two
documents were marked as Exs.R-1 and R-2.
7. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the present claimant i.e.,
in MVC.No.6991/2011 as global compensation. The
Tribunal also held that accident had taken place due to
composite negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and
10% of the amount of compensation was deducted. Same
is challenged in the present appeal.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant
submits that the Tribunal has erred in not taking into
consideration the income of the claimant. It has erred in
not considering the injuries and the fractures sustained by
the claimant and also no amount is awarded towards loss
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
HC-KAR
of amenities. With these reasons, he prayed for
enhancement of compensation.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer
supports impugned judgement and submits that Tribunal
has properly appreciated the evidence on record and
awarded just and reasonable compensation and it does not
call for interference by this Court. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the appeal.
11. Following points arises for consideration:
(i) Whether the claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
(ii) What order?
12. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment at Para
Nos.21 to 26, discussed regarding the case on hand and
awarded global compensation of Rs.20,000/-. The
Tribunal relied upon the wound certificate at Ex.P-15 to
discard the evidence of doctor PW-5, as well as evidence
of the claimant, who was examined as PW-3. Ex.P-15 is
given by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital,
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
HC-KAR
Palamaner, Chittoor District. It indicates that claimant
has sustained lacerated wound injury measuring 4 cm
x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm over occipital region of scalp
surrounded by contusion. It is also noted by the doctor
that the said injuries are simple in nature. Claimant has
produced X-ray and it does not indicate any fracture
sustained by him. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly not
believed the evidence of PW-5 that claimant had sustained
fracture of ulna.
13. Considering the contentions of the claimant and
also materials on record, this Court felt that the claimant
is entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- in addition to the
amount awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in total the
claimant is entitled for global compensation of
Rs.35,000/-.
14. As per the records, the claimant was a pillion
rider. The composite negligence is on the rider of the
motorcycle, as well as driver of the lorry. The claimant
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
HC-KAR
had not contributed anything in causing the accident in
question. Therefore, deduction of 10% of the
compensation amount is not permissible. The Tribunal has
erred in deducting 10% of the compensation amount on
the ground that due to contributory negligence of rider of
the motorcycle, the accident had taken place. However,
the claimant had not contributed for the same. Hence, the
award of the Tribunal needs to be modified.
15. For the aforesaid discussions, point No.1 is
answered partly in the affirmative.
In MFA.No.9223/2013 :
16. The deceased Ashok was the rider of the
motorcycle. Due to the accident in question, he sustained
fracture of right femur and fracture of mandible. He was
treated in CMC Hospital, Vellore as an inpatient from
24.05.2010 to 27.05.2010. It is stated that he underwent
surgery and spent huge amount towards medical
expenses. During the pendency of the petition, he died
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
HC-KAR
due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. For
these reasons, the appellants prayed to award the
compensation.
17. After hearing the learned counsel for both side,
following questions arises for consideration:
(i) Whether the claimants are entitled for
compensation?
(ii) What order?
18. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment at
para-20, observed that the said Ashok died due to
consumption of poison. Ex.P-11 reveals the said fact.
Therefore, the death was not due to the injuries sustained
by him in the accident. On the basis of said observation,
the Tribunal decided to dismiss the claim petition.
19. Claimants have produced the documents to show
that deceased had sustained closed fracture of shaft of
right femur and fracture of mandible. He was admitted as
an inpatient and took treatment. He spent amount
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
HC-KAR
towards medical expenses, for which he had produced the
receipts given by the hospital, as well as medical stores at
Ex.P-14 - total amount of the said bills is Rs.37,742/-,
which is not disputed. Deceased was a resident of
Bengaluru. The accident took place at Palamner of
Chittoor District in Tamilnadu State and was admitted in
the hospital at Vellore, as such, someone must have
attended him while he was undergoing treatment as
inpatient. Deceased might be on special diet and for
follow-up treatment, he might have visited the said
hospital and spent the amount towards the same.
Deceased or claimants are entitled for the said amounts
spent towards medical expenses and incidental expenses.
These facts were not at all considered by the Tribunal.
20. It is true that injured claimant died during the
pendency of the claim petition and his legal heirs are not
entitled for the compensation under other heads, but, they
are entitled for reimbursement of the amount spent for
treatment of the deceased as stated supra. In view of the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
HC-KAR
said reasons, interference in the findings of the Tribunal is
required.
21. For the aforesaid discussion, I answer point No.1
partly in the affirmative and award compensation of
Rs.60,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses of
the deceased claimant. Tribunal held that accident
occurred due to composite negligence of rider of the
motorcycle. The said finding is proper. Deceased was rider
of the motor cycle. And hence 10% of compensation is to
be deducted towards his contribution for causing the
accident. Claimants are entitled for 54,000/-.
22. Undisputedly, the respondent No.1 being the
owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are liable to
pay the said amount.
23. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) MFA.No.9021/2013 and
MFA.No.9223/2013 are allowed in part.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
HC-KAR
ii) The judgment and award dated
14th July 2014, passed in MVC.No.6991/2010
and MVC.No.7152/2011, by the M.A.C.T.,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City (SCCH-
10), stands modified.
iii) The claimant in MFA.No.7152/2011
are entitled to enhancement of Rs. 15,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on
the enhanced amount, from the date of
petition till its realization.
iv) The order of the Tribunal that
claimant is entitled for only 90% of the
compensation is incorrect and is set aside.
The claimant is entitled for entire amount of
Rs.20,000/- +Rs.15,000/-= 35,000/- with
interest.
iv) The claimant in MFA.No.6991/2010 is
entitled for compensation of Rs.54,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till its realization.
v) The Respondent No.2 insurance
company shall deposit the amount within a
period of six weeks from the date of award.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19061
HC-KAR
vi) The accident had taken place in the
year 2010 and the amount of compensation is
meagre. Therefore, entire amount of
compensation is ordered to be released in
favour of the claimant in the respective claim
petitions, on proper identification.
vii) Draw award accordingly.
Registry is directed to send back the records along
with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
bk
