Karnataka High Court
Renuka W/O Balayya @ Balaraj Shriram And ... vs Sami Ahmed S/O Abdul Raheemsab And Anr on 20 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
MFA No. 201651 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201651 OF 2021 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200450 OF 2021 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.201651/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. RENUKA W/O BALAYYA @ BALARAJ SHRIRAM,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
AND COOLIE,
2. SUJATA D/O BALAYYA @ BALARAJ SHRIRAM,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
AND COOLIE,
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DOBALE GALLI,
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAMI AHMED S/O ABDUL RAHEEMSAB,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF
EICHER VEHICLE BEARING ITS REG. NO.
KA.56/0386, R/O NO. 18/232, KOLLIWAD,
TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585 330.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
MFA No. 201651 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021
2. THE MANAGER LEGAL,
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E/8, EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPUR, JAIPUR,
(RAJASTHAN STATE)-302 022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 21.01.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2020 PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VII, AT VIJAYAPUR, IN
MVC NO. 676/2016.
IN MFA NO.200450/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGER LEGAL,
M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E/8, EPIP RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR,
JAIPUR, (RAJASTAN STATE),
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY ITS,
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO. 5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE,
BELEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
OFF BHANNERUGHATTA ROAD, IIMB POST,
BENGALURU-560 076.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
MFA No. 201651 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021
AND:
1. SMT. RENUKA W/O BALAYYA @ BALARAJ SHRIRAM,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND COOLIE,
2. SMT SUJATA D/O BALAYYA @ BALARAJ SHRIRAM,
AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND COOLIE,
BOTH ARE R/O DOBALE GALLI,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
3. MR. SAMI AHMED S/O ABDUL RAHEEMSAB,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF
EICHER NO.KA-56/0386, R/O NO. 18/232,
KOLIWAD, TALUK HUMNABAD,
DIST. BIDAR-585 330.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2;
R3-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.676/2016 BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT VII, AT VIJAYAPURA.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
MFA No. 201651 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 200450 of 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants in both the appeals.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in
MVC No.676/2016, dated 05.08.2020 by learned II-
Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VII, Vijayapura, the
petitioners and the respondent No.2-insurance company
are before this Court in these appeals.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on
21.11.2015, the deceased Kiran was riding a motorcycle
bearing No.MH-13/BW-6035 with a friend as a pillion rider
and opposite to Hotel Bandenawaz at Solapur, Eicher
vehicle bearing No.KA-56/0386 came from opposite
direction in high speed and negligent manner and by
coming on the wrong side, it dashed to the motorcycle
resulting in deceased Kiran suffering injuries and later
succumbed to the injuries while taking treatment at Civil
Hospital Solapur. It was contended that the deceased was
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
aged 19 years and therefore, the petitioners being the
mother and sister of the deceased are entitled for the
compensation. The Solapur police had registered case and
after investigation they had filed chargesheet against one
Mohammad Mainuddin Fareedsab Shaikh. Obviously the
case was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by
the pillion rider Raheman Mohammad Nadaf.
4. On service of notice, the respondent No.1 and 2
appeared before the Tribunal and filed the written
statement.
5. Respondent No.1 denied the petition
averments, and the age, income and occupation of the
deceased, and termed the compensation claimed as highly
exorbitant and imaginary.
6. Inter-alia he contended that the deceased Kiran
was riding the motorcycle under the influence of the
alcohol and he had tried to overtake another vehicle and
as such there was negligence on the part of the deceased
Kiran. He contended that his vehicle was insured with the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
respondent No.2 and any liability may be fastened upon
the respondent No.2 on account of the insurance cover.
He also contended that the driver of the Eicher vehicle was
having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.
7. The respondent No.2-insurance company
contended that there were violations of the terms and
conditions of the policy and the driver of the Eicher vehicle
was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the
accident. It was contended that the compensation claimed
is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and as such
it sought for the dismissal of the petition.
8. On the basis of the said contentions,
appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and the
petitioner No.2 was examined as PW1 and the complainant
examined as PW2. Ex.P1 to 6 were marked in evidence.
The respondents examined two witnesses as RW1 and
RW2 and Ex.R1 to 4 were marked.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
9. After hearing the arguments by both sides, the
Tribunal awarded compensation on different heads as
below;
Loss of dependency Rs.7,56,000/-
Transportation of dead body Rs.25,000/-
and funeral expenses
Loss of estate Rs.20,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.40,000/-
Total Rs.40,000/-
10. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are in appeal in
MFA No.201651/2021 and the Insurance Company is in
appeal in MFA No.200450/2021.
11. Heard the arguments by learned counsel
appearing for the appellants in both the cases. The learned
counsel appearing for the insurance company would
submit the FIR nowhere mention the name of the driver of
the Eicher vehicle and the name of the driver has been
implicated at a later point of time. He contends that the
name of the driver as may be found in the chargesheet,
which is at Ex.P5 would disclose as Mohammed Mainuddin
Fareedsab Shaikh with his father's name as Fareedsab
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
Shaikh. He contends that name of the driver as may be
found from the driving licence produced at Ex.R4 shows
that he was Mohammed Mainuddin S/o Fareedsab.
Therefore, there is a discrepancy in the name of the driver
with reference to the driving license and the name found
in the chargesheet and as such the driver has been
implicated at a later stage. He further contends that the
said driver who has been examined as RW2 is unable to
explain the discrepancy with regard to his name as well as
the date of birth as may be found from the Aadhar card
produced at Ex.R3. Therefore, he contends that the
implication of the name of the driver is with an ulterior
motive of making unlawful gain and as such the liability of
the insurance company be absolved.
12. He further contends, in reply to the submissions
by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no need
for enhancement of the compensation or any interference
and with regard to impugned judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would submit that the RW2 Mohammad
Mainuddin has been examined at the instance of the
respondent No.1 by summoning him and when such an
explanation is offered by RW2 by tendering Ex.R3 and
Ex.R4, it is not open to the respondent No.2 to contend
that there exist any discrepancy. It is contended that RW2
himself has stated that he has faced the trial before the
Criminal Court pursuant to chargesheet filed against him
and when he owns the Aadhaar card at Ex.R4, showing his
year of birth as 1966 and that there is an incorrect entry
in the driving licence as his year of birth as 1958, it is not
open to the insurance company to contend that the
discrepancy still persist and that would inevitably show a
false implication. It is contended that when the
involvement of the vehicle owned by the respondent No.1
which is insured by the respondent No.2 is unequivocally
shown to have been involved in the accident, it cannot be
said that the driving licence which has been produced
through the driver is incorrect and improper. Therefore, he
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
submits that the appeal by the insurance company is liable
to be dismissed.
14. He further submit that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the
notional income may be assessed properly by considering
the future prospects.
15. The first aspect to be looked into by this Court
is regarding the name of the driver. As noted supra, the
Ex.R3 which is the Addhaar card show the name RW2 as
Mohammed Moinuddin S/o Mohammad Fareedsab, his year
of birth as 1966. The driving licence at Ex.R4 shows the
name as Mohammed Mainuddin S/o Farook Sab with date
of birth as 01.08.1958. When we examine the testimony of
the RW2, he owns both these documents and says that he
was the driver at the time of the accident. He also says
that he has faced the charges before the Criminal Court. It
is worth to note that in the cross examination of the RW2,
there is nothing which has been brought out by the
respondent No.2-insurance company which would discredit
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
his testimony. He denies that the person mentioned in the
charge sheet is a different person than RW2. He admits
that, he do not have any document to show that his father
is shown as Faridsab @ Farook Sab. When there is no
discrepancy in respect of the name of the petitioner, and
when the testimony of the RW2 is not impeached by cross
examination, it is not open to the insurance company to
contend that the driver was falsely implicated. Moreover,
when the driving licence has been produced by the RW2
and when his name finds place in the charge sheet and the
charge sheet having not been shown to be incorrect, the
appeal filed by the insurance company is devoid of any
merits. It is pertinent to note that nothing is brought out
by the insurance company on record as to how the
investigating officer came to know about the name of the
accused. It is also relevant to note that the complaint as
well as the other papers does not show as to how the
investigating officer had come to know about the name of
the RW2 to be the driver of the vehicle. Under these
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
circumstances, the appeal filed by the insurance company
is devoid of any merits and the same is liable to dismissed.
16. So far as the quantum of the compensation is
concerned, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at
Rs.7,000/-. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for
settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalath prescribe a
notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month for the year
2015. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has
held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in
general conformity with the wages fixed under the
Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, they are acceptable as
held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s
Pranay Sethi,1 Hence, the notional income of the
petitioner is considered at (Rs.8,000/- + 3,200/- =
11,200/-). Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated
as Rs.11,200/- x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.12,09,600/- by
adopting a multiplier of 18 for the age of 19 years and
deducting the personal expenses at 50%.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
17. In addition to it, the petitioners are also entitled
for a sum of Rs.52,000/- under the head of loss of love
and affection, a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head of
funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head
of loss of a estate which includes escalation of 10% at
every three years as held in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra).
18. Under these circumstances, the compensation is
re-assessed by this Court and the petitioners are entitled
for the modified compensation under different heads as
below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.12,09,600/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.52,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs.19,500/- /-
4. Funeral expenses Rs.19,500/-
Total Rs.13,00,600/-
Less: awarded by Tribunal Rs.8,41,000/-
Enhancement Rs.4,59,600/-
19. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves
to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
ORDER
(i) MFA No.200450/2021 is dismissed.
(ii) MFA No.201651/2021 is allowed in part.
(iii) The impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is modified.
(iv) The appellants / claimants in MFA
No.201651/2021 are entitled to a sum of
Rs.4,59,600/- in addition to the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal together with interest
at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its
realization.
(v) The appellant/Insurance company in MFA
No.200450/2021 is directed to deposit the
entire compensation amount within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order.
(vi) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal
remains unaltered.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1775
(vii) The amount deposited before this Court in
MFA.No.201651/2021 is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SMP
CT: AK
