Karnataka High Court
Mr Bernaad Mendonse @ Bernard Walter ... vs Bharti Axa General Insurance Co Ltd on 12 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36139
MFA No. 3566 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3566 OF 2024(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. BERNAAD MENDONSE @
BERNARD WALTER MENDONCA,
S/O. LATE JAKOOB MENDONCE,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
2. MELROY MENDONCA @ MELROY,
S/O. BERNAAD MENDONSE @
BERNARD WALTER MENDONCA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
3. BRAYAN JUDE MENDONCA,
S/O BERNAAD MENDONSE @
BERNARD WALTER MENDONCA,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN THE APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR AND
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THE APPELLANT NO.1 HEREIN.
ALL ARE R/O. HOUSE NO.7-19(1),
THUDAM THALIPADY VILLAGE,
AIKALA POST, KINNIGOLI,
MANGALURU TALUK.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B. R., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36139
MFA No. 3566 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, THE FERNS ICON, SY NO.28,
DODDANAKUNDI, OUTER RING ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 037,
NOW ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, NO.414,
VEER SAVARKAR MARG,
NEAR SIDDHIVINAYAKA TEMPLE,
PRABHADEVI MUMBAI - 400 025,
LOCAL OFFICE MAXIMUS BUILDING,
3RD FLOOR, NALAPAD RESIDENCY,
LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD,
MANGALURU - 575 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
2. MR. WILSON RODRIGUES
S/O AVALIN RODRIGUES,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT H NO.1-96, KALUR VILLAGE,
AIKALA VIA, KINNIGOLI,
MANGALURU TALUK - 574 150.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2- V/C/O DATED 12.09.2025, NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.01.2024 PASSED IN
MVC NO.457/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU D.K,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:36139
MFA No. 3566 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Guruprasad B.R., learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel
who appears for respondent No.1.
2. The claimants in MVC No.457/2018 that stood
pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru,
D.K. and was disposed of through orders dated 09.01.2024 are
before this Court challenging the order rendered.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
order of the Tribunal in all aspects is justifiable except in
respect of taking the age of the deceased Meenakshi as on the
date of accident. Learned counsel submits that the deceased
Meenakshi was aged around 39 years by the date of accident
and to prove the said fact the appellants produced Ex.P11-
Voter Identity Card. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal
took the age of the deceased as 43 years as on the date of
accident and thereby erred in respect of the future prospects to
be applied as provided under law and also the appropriate
multiplier as envisaged.
NC: 2025:KHC:36139
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, the submission that is made by learned
counsel for respondent No.1 is that the Tribunal basing on
Ex.P8 - Post Mortem report took the age of the deceased
Meenakshi as 43 years and therefore the award of the Tribunal
needs no interference.
5. The appellants themselves in their claim petition
made a clear mention that as on the date of accident the
deceased Meenakshi was aged 43 years. Further Ex.P8-Post
Mortem report also reveals that the deceased Meenakshi was
aged around 43 years by the date of accident. The Identity
Card issued by the Election Commission of India which is also
called Voters Identity Card cannot be taken to be a substantive
document in proof of age of a particular person.
6. Having considered the fact that the appellants
themselves asserted that the deceased Meenakshi was aged
around 43 years by the date of accident which is also supported
by the contents of Ex.P8-Post Mortem report, this Court is of
the view that the Tribunal did not err in taking the age of the
deceased as 43 years by the date of accident and applying the
NC: 2025:KHC:36139
HC-KAR
required parameters. Therefore, this Court ultimately holds
that the appeal lacks merits.
Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
