Karnataka High Court
The Legal Manager vs Lokesh on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12392
MFA No. 6862 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6863 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6862 OF 2015 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6863 OF 2015 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 6862/2015
BETWEEN:
THE LEGAL MANAGER
RELIANCE GIC LTD.,
MYSORE TRADE TOWER
OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND
MYSORE
NOW REP. BY ITS
LEGAL MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28
EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR
CENTENARY BUILDING
Digitally M.G.ROAD
signed by BANGALORE - 560 001.
SUVARNA T ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. LOKESH
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT SHAMBUDEVANAPURA VILLAGE
T.NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE - 571 124.
2. R.SATISHA
S/O K.RAMU
AGED MAJOR
R/AT NO.180
YERAGANAHALLI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12392
MFA No. 6862 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6863 of 2015
MYSORE -570 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARISH KUMAR V.L., ADVOCATE FOR R1- ABSENT
R2- SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V.C.O. DATED: 04.04.2019)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.05.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.65/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC,
MACT, TIRUMAKUDALU NARASIPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION
OF RS.5,70,006/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT IN THE TRIBUNAL.
IN MFA NO. 6863/2015
BETWEEN:
THE LEGAL MANAGER
RELIANCE GIC LTD.,
MYSORE TRADE TOWER
OPP: KSRTC GUS STAND
MYSORE
NOW REP BY ITS
LEGAL MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28
EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR
CENTENARY BUILDING
M.G.ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BHAVANI @ EISWARYA
D/O RAJAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS
R/AT LINGAYITARA BEEDI
NILASOGE VILLAGE
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE 571124
SINCE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS A MINOR
REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN
FATHER SRI.RAJAPPA
2. R.SATISHA
S/O K.RAMU
AGED MAJOR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:12392
MFA No. 6862 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6863 of 2015
R/AT NO.180
YERAGANAHALLI
MYSORE - 570 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARISH KUMAR V.L., ADVOCATE FOR R1- ABSENT
R2- SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V.C.O. DATED: 04.04.2019)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:2.5.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.64/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC,
MACT, TIRUMAKUDALU NARASIPURA, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.95,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT IN THE
TRIBUNAL.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.65/2012
dated 02.05.2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
T.Narasipura, the Insurance Company is before this Court
questioning the negligence as well as the quantum of
compensation that is granted to the claimant.
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 28.05.2012 at
about 5:30 p.m., when the deceased was crossing the
Talakadu-T.Narasipura road, at that time the driver of the lorry
came from Talakadu side at high speed in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact,
NC: 2025:KHC:12392
she had sustained grievous injuries and was immediately
shifted to T.Narasipura Govt. Hospital for first aid treatment
and thereafter shifted to St.John's hospital, Mysore, where she
was treated as inpatient for about two days. She had
succumbed to the injuries and died in the hospital.
3. It is the case of the Insurance Company that there is
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The
Tribunal had held that there is no contributory negligence on
the part of the deceased and the accident had taken place
because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle. The Tribunal had granted compensation of an
amount of Rs.5,70,006/- as per the table below:
SL. Heads Compensation
No. Awarded
1. Loss of : Rs. 5,28,000/-
income/dependency
2. Loss of love and : Rs. 10,000/-
affection
Transportation and
3. : Rs. 15,000/-
funeral
4. Medical Bills : Rs. 17,006/-
TOTAL : Rs. 5,70,006/-
NC: 2025:KHC:12392
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company submits that the accident had taken place on a
highway, when the deceased was crossing the road where there
was no zebra crossing. In that case, the deceased has
contributed to the accident. This aspect was not considered by
the Tribunal. Then coming to the compensation, it is submitted
that the claimant is the major son of the deceased who is 34
years old and he is not dependent on the deceased. In that
case, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income.
In this case, the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd of the income,
considering the major son as the dependent. He submits that
the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is on the
higher side and not fixing the contributory negligence on the
deceased is also bad and the same needs to be interfered by
this Court.
5. When this matter came up yesterday, there was no
representation on behalf of the respondents. This Court has
heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
and posted the matter today as part-heard. Today also, there is
no representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, this
Court is considering the matter on the merits of it.
NC: 2025:KHC:12392
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/
Insurance Company, perused the entire material on record. The
contention with regard to the rash and negligent driving which
has happened in the daylight, the Insurance Company has
failed to examine anybody in this regard and just like that on
the ground that she was crossing the road where there was no
zebra crossing cannot be a ground to say that there is
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
7. Coming to the compensation, this Court is not able to
appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company with regard to the major son of
the deceased is not a dependant. In the light of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the recent judgment in case of
Seema Rani Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company
Limited1. Hence in view of the above discussion, this Court
finds no reason to interfere.
8. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company is
dismissed and the amount in deposit shall be transmitted to
the Tribunal.
2025 INSC 192
NC: 2025:KHC:12392
9. Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.64/2012
dated 02.05.2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
T.Narasipura, the Insurance Company is before this Court
questioning the negligence as well as the quantum of
compensation that is granted to the claimant.
10. It is the case of the claimant that on 28.05.2012 at
about 5:30 p.m., when the claimant was crossing the Talakadu-
T.Narasipura road along with her mother and grandmother, at
that time the driver of the lorry came from Talakadu side at
high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the claimant. Due to the impact, she had sustained grievous
injuries to her parietal bone, on face and ear and was
immediately shifted to Talakadu Govt. Hospital for first aid
treatment and thereafter shifted to St.John's hospital, Mysore,
where she was treated as inpatient for about seven days.
11. It is the case of the Insurance Company that there is
contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The
Tribunal had held that there is no contributory negligence on
the part of the claimant and the accident had taken place
NC: 2025:KHC:12392
because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle. The Tribunal had granted compensation of an
amount of Rs.95,000/- as per the table below:
SL. Heads Compensation
No. Awarded
1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 30,000/-
2. Medical bills and : Rs. 10,000/-
hospitalization charges
Food and nourishment,
3. : Rs. 5,000/-
conveyance etc.
4. Loss of amenities : Rs. 50,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 95,000/-
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company submits that the accident had taken place on a
highway, when the claimant was crossing the road where there
was no zebra crossing. In that case, the claimant has
contributed to the accident. This aspect was not considered by
the Tribunal. He submits that the compensation that is granted
by the Tribunal is on the higher side and not fixing the
contributory negligence on the claimant is also bad and the
same needs to be interfered by this Court.
13. When this matter came up yesterday, there was no
representation on behalf of the respondents. This Court has
heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
NC: 2025:KHC:12392
and posted the matter today as part-heard. Today also, there is
no representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, this
Court is considering the matter on the merits of it.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/
Insurance Company, perused the entire material on record. The
contention with regard to the rash and negligent driving which
has happened in the daylight, the Insurance Company has
failed to examine anybody in this regard and just like that on
the ground that she was crossing the road where there was no
zebra crossing cannot be a ground to say that there is
contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The
claimant had sustained injuruies and the Tribunal had granted
an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and an
amount of Rs.5,000/- towards food and nourishment,
conveyance etc. and the amount granted under the other heads
also is reasonable and this Court is not inclined to interferer
with the award passed by the Tribunal.
15. Hence, the appeal of the Insurance Company is
dismissed and the amount in deposit shall be transferred to
the Tribunal.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12392
16. Accordingly, MFA No.6862/2015 and MFA
No.6863/2015 are dismissed.
i. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records
to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the
order passed by this Court forthwith without any
delay.
ii. No costs.
iii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG
