Karnataka High Court

Smt Rathna vs Smt Meenakshi on 6 June, 2025

-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2015 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3689 OF 2016 (MV-D)

IN MFA No.79/2015 :

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
JAYADEVA HOSPITAL, B.H.ROAD,
TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
NOW REPRESENTED BY-
M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE,
2ND FLOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX,
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT

Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
(BY SRI. SURESH K.,ADVOCATE)
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:

1. SMT RATHNA
W/O.SRI. SADASHIVA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

2. SRI. J GIRISH
S/O SRI. JANARDHANA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

3. SMT. SANDYA
W/O SRI. RAVI ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

4. SMT. GAYATHRI,
W/O SRI. SUBBARAYA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

5. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA ACHAR,
S/O SRI. JANARDHANA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

6. SMT. SOWNYA
W/O SRI GURURAJ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

ALL ARE PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
BESIDE LAKSHMIDEVI TEMPLE,
CHIKKA GARADI BEEDI,
HASSAN- 573 201.

ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE PRESENTLY
RESIDING AT MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
GAYATHRU BADAVANE,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 201.

7. SMT. MEENAKSHI
W/O SRI C.P.KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
CHANNARAYAPATNA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.K. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R1, R3 TO R7 ARE SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:7.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.731/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,99,000/- WITH INTEREST
@ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
REALIZATION.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

IN MFA NO. 3689/2016

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. RATHNA
W/O SADASHIVA ACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

2. SRI.J.GIRISH
S/O JANARDHANA ACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

3. SMT.SANDYA
W/O RAVI ACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

4. SMT.GAYATHRIS
W/O SUBBARAYA ACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

5. SRI.RAGHAVENDRA ACHAR
W/O JANARDHANA ACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

6. SMT.SOWMYA
W/O GURURAJ,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

ALL ARE PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
BESIDE LAKSHMIDEVI TEMPLE,
CHIKKA GARADI BEEDI,
HASSAN.
ALL THE APPELLANTS NO.1 to 6 ARE
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
GAYATHRI BADAVANE,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN,
HASAN DISTRICT - 574 101.
...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. A.K BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAJU S, ADVOCATE )
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

AND:

1. SMT MEENAKSHI
W/O C.P.KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
CHANNARAYAPATNA-572 159.

2. THE MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
JAYADEVAL HOSPITAL,
B.H.ROAD, TIPTUR
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 131.

BRANCH OFFICE,

THE MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
SUBASH SQUARE,
HASSAN- 574 101.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R1-SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.731/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT, MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

These appeals arise out of judgment and award

dated 7th November 2014, passed by the Fast Track Court

and Addl.M.A.C.T., Channarayapatna, (for short

`Tribunal'), in MVC No.731/2014. Claimants filed

MFA.No.3689/2016 and the Insurance Company filed

MFA.No.79/2014. Insurer challenged the said judgment

on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and

entitlement of the claimants to claim compensation.

Claimants have filed the appeal for enhancement of

compensation.

2. Both the appeals arise out of common judgment

and award, therefore they are taken up together for

disposal.

3. Though appeals are slated for admission, with

consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides,

they are taken up for final disposal.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

5. Brief facts of the case are that, on 06.05.2012, at

about 7.00 p.m., deceased Rajanna was traveling in a

Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.KA-13-M-8834, from

Hassan to Channarayapatna. When they reached near

Katharighatta gate, on National Highway No.48, driver of

the said jeep drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent

manner and hit the Santro car bearing registration No.KA-

18-N-8069, as a result of which Rajanna sustained

grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the

spot. The deceased was aged about 30 years and he was

a mechanic in TVS Showroom and earning Rs.12,000/- per

month. He was contributing his earnings to the member

of his family i.e., claimants. With these reasons, claimants

prayed to award the compensation of Rs.16 lakhs.

6. Claimants are sisters and brothers of the deceased

Rajanna. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

No.2 is the insurer of Bolero Jeep bearing registration

No.KA-13-M-8834.

7. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed

the written statement denying contents of the claim

petition. Respondent No.1 further contended that the

vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and respondent

No.2 is liable to pay the compensation in case the claim

petition is allowed.

8. Respondent No.2-insurer contended that petition

is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The accident

had taken place exclusively due to the rash and negligent

driving by Santro car by its driver, therefore, respondents

are not liable to pay the compensation. The amount of

compensation claimed is highly exorbitant. Its liability is

restricted to the terms and conditions of the insurance

policy and also the driver of the jeep was not holding

effective and valid driving licence to drive the vehicle.

With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

9. From the rival contentions of the parties, the

Tribunal framed necessary issues.

10. Claimants to prove their case, examined one

witness as PW-1 and marked 8 documents as per Exs.P-1

to P-8. The respondents have not led any oral evidence,

but marked one document as Ex.R-1.

11. After hearing both parties and appreciating the

pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal partly

allowed the petition by holding that accident had taken

place due to negligence of driver of Bolero vehicle. The

Tribunal also held that claimants being the dependants are

entitled to claim compensation. Tribunal assessed the

notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month;

taken the age of PW-2 i.e., petitioner No.2 as 43 years,

determined the multiplier as `14' and after deducting 50%

of the income towards personal expenses since the

deceased was unmarried, awarded compensation under
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

the head `loss of dependency' and awarded total

compensation of Rs.3,99,000/- as below :

Loss of dependency Rs.3,78,000/-

Cremation and obsequies Rs.20,000/-

Transportation of dead body Rs.1,000/-

Total Rs.3,99,000/-

Same is challenged in these appeals by both the

parties.

12. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the claimants as well as the insurer.

13. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that

the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier by taking

the age of the deceased and not by considering the age of

petitioner No.2. He further contends that, according to

the contentions of the claimants, deceased was earning

Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken income

as Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on the lesser side.

He further contends that even if the contention of the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

claimants is not proved, then Tribunal could have

considered the notional income as per the chart prepared

by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

14. It is further stated that, as per the law laid down

in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Pranay

Sethi1, amount of compensation is not awarded under the

conventional heads. With these reasons, prayed to

enhance the amount of compensation.

15. Learned counsel for the insurer vehemently

contends that merely charge sheet is filed against the

driver of the Bolero vehicle is not a ground to accept the

same. The hand sketch map and spot mahazar reveals

that Santro car came on the wrong side of the road and hit

the Bolero vehicle, because of which, the Bolero vehicle

jumped from maiden and went to the right side of the

road. It clearly indicates that accident had taken place

due to negligence of driver of the Santro vehicle. Inspite

1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

of taking defence in the written statement, claimants have

not impleaded owner and insurer of the Santro car.

Therefore, claim petition is bad for non-joinder of

necessary parties.

16. Learned counsel for the insurer further contends

that claimants are not dependent on the deceased. They

are all brothers and sisters and Class-2 heirs. Considering

the same, Tribunal has taken the multiplier on the basis of

age of petitioner No.2. The said finding is incorrect. As

per the evidence of PW-1, deceased was elder to him.

Even in Ex.P-1, the age of the deceased is mentioned as

50 years. Therefore, his age may be considered as

50 years to apply multiplier. He further contended that

the calculation of the compensation by the Tribunal is

correct and there is no need to interfere in the amount of

compensation awarded. With these reasons, prayed to

dismiss the claim petition.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

17. Following points arises for consideration:

(i) Whether the claim petition is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding
that the accident had taken place due to sole
negligence of driver of the Bolero Jeep bearing
registration No.KA-13-M-8834?

(iii) Whether the amount of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

(iv) What order?

Point No.1 & 2 :

18. The fact of occurrence of the accident and the

death of Rajanna in the said accident are not in serious

dispute. According to the claimants, the accident occurred

due to negligence of the driver of the Bolero Jeep; And

according to the insurer, accident had taken place due to

contributory negligence of driver of both the vehicle and

contribution of driver of the Santro car was more. In view

of these circumstances, necessary parties are not

impleaded by the claimants.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

19. It is pertinent to note that charge sheet was filed

against the driver of the Bolero Jeep for causing the

accident in question. Respondent No.2-insurer has not

examined any of the witnesses to the accident to rebut the

evidence of PW-1 or to show that final report submitted by

the Investigating Officer is incorrect. There are no

materials to overcome the charge sheet and its

enclosures. Learned counsel for the insurer mainly relies

on Ex.P-4 to show that Santro car was going at the wrong

side of the road. In Ex.P-3, it is shown that road repair

work was under progress; therefore, one side of the road

was closed and vehicles were plying on other side of the

road. In view of the said fact, it cannot be held that driver

of the Santro vehicle was going at the wrong side of the

road. If that was the case, the Investigating Officer ought

to have noted the same in the charge sheet. Therefore,

prima facie there are no materials to believe that driver of

the Santro car has also contributed in causing the accident

in question.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

20. Claimants were third parties and deceased was

also a third party. Even if it is considered that the

accident had taken place due to contributory negligence of

driver of both the vehicles, then both are joint tortfeasors.

Hence, the claimants can claim compensation from either

of the joint tortfeasor and therefore, non-inclusion of

owner and insurer of Santro vehicle is not fatal to the case

of the claimants.

21. Learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon

judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei

-vs- New India Assurance Company Limited and others,2

and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of

Karnataka State Road Transport Coporation, by its

Managing Director -vs- Arun @ Aravind and others 3. In

both these judgments, Full Bench of this Court, as well as

Apex Court, have held that claimant can claim the

compensation from either of the joint tortfeasor and there

2
(2015) 9 SCC 273
3
ILR 2004 KAR 26
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

is no need to include both the joint tortfeasors as parties

in the claim petition. The principle of law laid down in the

above said two cases are applicable to the facts of the

present case. Hence, claim petition does not suffer from

defect of non-joinder of necessary party.

22. The Tribunal based on these facts, rightly held

that the accident had taken place due to rash and

negligent driving of the Bolero Jeep by its driver, the same

does not call for any interference by this Court.

Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the

affirmative.

Point No.3 :

23. It is not in dispute that claimants are brothers

and sisters of the deceased Rajanna, who was unmarried.

They contend that they were in financial difficulties and

deceased used to share his income with them. There are

no materials to disbelieve the said contention. Therefore,

though they may not be Class-1 heirs and direct legal
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

heirs of the deceased, but, they are all Class-2 heirs under

Hindu Law and depending upon earnings of deceased.

24. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.,

-vs- Birender and others,4 it is held by the Hon'ble Apex

Court that dependency does not mean that they are

completely depending upon the earnings of the deceased.

Even married sons and daughters are also covered under

the expression `legal representative'. The law laid down

in the above said judgment is applicable to the facts of the

present case. Therefore, claimants are entitled to claim

the compensation.

25. The age of deceased at the time of the accident

is stated as 30 years in the claim petition. Even in post

mortem report, his aged is mentioned as 30 years. From

the other materials on record, it appears the said fact is

incorrect. He is elder to petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.2's

age is mentioned as 43 years and elder sister's age is

4
AIR 2020 SC 434
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

mentioned as 49 years. Therefore, the age of the

deceased must be above the age of 43 years or below the

age of 49 years. Therefore, the age of the deceased as

stated in Ex.P-1 as 50 years is also incorrect. Considering

the available materials on record, age of the deceased is

taken between 44 to 48 years. The suitable multiplier

applicable in this case is `14' as per Pranay Sethi's case

(supra).

26. Claimants are not able to prove that deceased

was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working as a

Mechanic in TVS showroom. Therefore, the Tribunal has

assessed the notional income as Rs.4,500/- per month. It

is on the lower side. If we follow the chart of notional

income prepared by the KSLSA, then his notional income

can be taken as Rs.7,000/- per month.

27. Learned counsel for the claimants contend that

25% of the earning of the deceased has to be added

towards future prospects. It is seriously disputed by the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

learned counsel for the insurer. Learned counsel for the

claimants relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Pranay Sethi's case (supra). As per the law

laid down in the said judgment, if deceased is below

50 years and self employed, then 25% of his income shall

be added towards future prospects. Same is applicable to

the facts of present case.

28. Claimants are brothers and sisters of the

deceased and deceased was unmarried. Therefore, 50%

of his income shall be deducted towards personal

expenses. On the basis of the above said figures, loss of

dependency is calculated.

29. As held in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), claimants

are entitled for the compensation under the conventional

heads. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that

each claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of

consortium. It is pertinent to note that claimants are

brothers and sisters. Hence, all of them together are
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

entitled for Rs.40,000/- under the head `loss of

consortium'.

30. In view of the above discussion, following

amount of compensation is awarded :

Particulars Amount in Rs.

Loss of dependency 7,35,000/-

(Rs.7,000/-+25%=Rs.8,750/- x 12x14
= Rs.14,70,000/50% =Rs.7,35,000/-)

Loss of consortium 40,000/-

Loss to the estate 15,000/-

Towards funeral expenses 15,000/-

Total 8,05,000/-

Less : Amount awarded by the 3,99,000/-
Tribunal
_________
Enhancement -
4,06,000/-

31. Thus, claimants are entitled to enhancement of

Rs.4,06,000/-, along with interest at 6% p.a. on the

enhanced amount from the date of petition till its

realization. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in

the affirmative.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19674
MFA No. 79 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 3689 of 2016

HC-KAR

This Court vide order dated 20.04.2017, condoned

the delay of 435 days in filing the appeal in

MFA.No.3689/2016, however, interest is not denied.

32. Undisputedly, the respondent No.1 being the

owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are liable to

pay the said amount.

33. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) MFA.No.3689/2016 filed by the claimants and MFA.No.79/2015 filed by the Insurance Company are allowed in-part.

ii) The judgment and award dated 7th November 2014, in MVC.No.731/2014, passed by the Fast Track Court and Addl.M.A.C.T., Channarayapatna, stands modified.

iii) The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,06,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization.

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19674

HC-KAR

v) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award.

vi) The remaining portion of the award with respect to apportionment, deposit and release of the amount are as ordered by the Tribunal.

vi) No order as to costs.

vii) Draw award accordingly.

viii) Whatever amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement.

Registry is directed to send back the records along

with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.

Sd/-

(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE