Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanaswamy vs Smt Hemalatha on 16 September, 2025
-1-
MFA No.3413 of 2015
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3413 OF 2015 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA CROB. NO.131 OF 2017 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.3413 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
THE CLAIM MANAGER
BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
LAKSHMI COMPLEX, B.M. ROAD
HASSAN
BY
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, GOLDEN HEIGHTS
4TH LEVEL, NO.1/2, 59TH CROSS
4TH "M" BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
Digitally signed by BENGALURU-560 010.
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA ...APPELLANT
Location: High Court
of Karnataka (BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O. DEVEGOWDA.
2. SMT. NINGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
W/O. NARAYANASWAMY.
3. SHILPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
-2-
MFA No.3413 of 2015
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
D/O. NARAYANASWAMY.
4. SRI HARISH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANASWAMY
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT A. CHOLENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
5. SMT. HEMALATHA
MAJOR
W/O. KOWSHALYARAMA
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.76
ANGARAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4;
R-5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
***
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 28-1-2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.113 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.22,69,320/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA CROB.131 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O. DEVEGOWDA.
2. SMT. NINGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
W/O. NARAYANASWAMY.
3. SHILPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
D/O. NARAYANASWAMY.
-3-
MFA No.3413 of 2015
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
4. SRI HARISH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANASWAMY.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
A. CHOLENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI K.R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. HEMALATHA
W/O. KOWSHALYARAMA
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.76
ANGARAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 210.
2. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
LAKSHMI COMPLEX
B.M. ROAD, HASSAN-560 010
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29-1-2021, NOTICE TO R-1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA CROB. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 R/W U/S
173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
28-1-2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.113 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND MFA CROB.,
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.09.2025 COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,
VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-4-
MFA No.3413 of 2015
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company and learned
counsel for the Cross objectors/claimants.
As these appeals are arising out of common judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal, we are disposing the appeals by this
common judgment.
MFA No.3413 of 2015 is filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Channarayapatna in MVC No.113 of 2011 dated
28.01.2015, whereas, MFA Crob.131 of 2017 is filed by the claimants
seeking for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, whereby, the Tribunal
awarded total compensation of Rs.22,69,320/- with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
per their rankings in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Tribunal is as
under:-
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
On 19.02.2011 at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased by name
C.N. Lokesh was proceeding on his Hero Honda splendor motor cycle
bearing registration No.KA 13-A-6526 on NH-48, B.M. Road, Near
Gowrommanahalli weigh bridge, Channarayapatna Town, at that
time, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA 13 A-7112
came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained
grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government
Hospital, Channarayapatna for treatment and SSM Hospital, Hassan
and later, on the way to Mysore, injured Lokesh succumbed to the
injuries on 20.02.2011. Hence, the claimants filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of M.V. Act. Claimant No.1 is the mother, claimant
No.2 is the father, claimant No.3 and 4 are unmarried sister and
brother respectively.
4. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence
on record, allowed the claim petition in-part. Hence, being aggrieved
by the judgment and award, the Insurance company and Cross
objectors/claimants are before this Court.
5. Sri O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
Insurance company in MFA No.3413/2015 vehemently contended
that the insured vehicle has been implicated through police
Investigation in favour of the claimants, which was evident from the
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
fact that there was non-compliance of mandatory provisions of
Section 134(c) of MV Act either by insured or of Section 158(5) of MV
Act, both by insured and concerned Investigating Police Officer and
the Insurer was kept in darkness in respect of alleged accident with
ulterior motive and with a fear that such concoction would be
exposed.
6. Secondly, he contended that the Tribunal ought to have
seen that the purpose of provisions of Section 134(c) and Section
158(5) of MV Act is to intimate the concerned Insurer. Both the
insured and police are required to take necessary steps and
necessary action at their end to settle the claim, if any, arising out of
the involvement of the insured vehicle at the earliest. This
requirement, if established, has not been met in the instant case.
7. Thirdly, he contended that the claim petition was not
maintainable either in law or on facts and was bad for non-joinder of
proper and necessary parties, i.e., the driver and owner of the
vehicle were not made as parties to the claim petition.
8. Fourthly, he contended that the Tribunal failed to consider
the aspect that it was statutory obligation under Rule 235 of
Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to send notices to owner and
driver of the vehicle, if the vehicle is involved in the accident.
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
9. Fifthly, he contended that the material available on record
clearly establishes that the insured vehicle was implicated with the
cooperation of so-called insured-first respondent, who remained ex-
parte after service of notice of the claim in question and the so-called
driver of offending vehicle one Prabhakara was not under
employment of the insured.
10. Lastly, he contended that the Tribunal has granted high
and exorbitant compensation on all heads by adding 50% future
prospects to the income of the deceased, which is contrary to the
ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017)
16 Supreme Court Cases 680. Further, he contended that the
deceased died bachelor and the mother of the deceased alone is to
be considered as dependant on the income of the deceased and the
other family members i.e., father, brother and sister of the deceased
are not considered as dependants of the deceased. The Tribunal
committed an error in applying the multiplier at '17', based on the
age of the deceased instead of applying multiplier at '15', based on
the age of the mother, who was stated to be aged 40 years. Hence,
he prayed to allow the appeal and dismiss the Cross objection appeal
filed by the claimants.
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
11. Sri. K.R. Lingaraju, learned counsel for the Cross
objectors/claimants in MFA.Crob.No.131/2017 contended that soon
after the accident, the injured was shifted to Government hospital,
Channarayapatna and for further treatment to SSM hospital, Hassan
and on the way to Mysore, deceased Lokesh succumbed to the
injuries on 20.02.2011. During this period, the claimants incurred a
sum of Rs.1,30,000/- towards medical expenses. But the Tribunal
awarded a compensation of only Rs.25,000/- towards 'medical
expenses'. Hence, he contends that the claimants are entitled for
Rs.1,30,000/- towards 'medical expenses'. Further, the Tribunal
awarded meager compensation under conventional heads, the same
is required to be enhanced. Hence, he prayed to allow the Cross
objection appeal.
12. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on
perusal of the appeal papers, the following points would arise for our
consideration in this appeal:-
1. Whether the appellant-Insurance company proved
that the Insured vehicle was implanted for the
purpose of compensation, thus, it is not liable to
pay compensation to the claimants?
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
2. "Whether the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it
call for enhancement or reduction?
13. In the instant cases, the Insurance company has disputed
the accident, involvement of vehicle and liability to pay
compensation. At the very outset, we have to deal with a vital issue
whether the alleged offending vehicle was involved in the accident or
subsequently implanted to get compensation from the Insurance
Company. If this issue is decided in the negative, then the other
issues are not at all relevant to be decided.
14. In order to prove the contention of the Insurance company,
it got examined one Sri. N. Kumar, the CPI as RW-1. He has
categorically stated that on 19.02.2011, the driver of lorry bearing
registration No.KA-13-A-7112 came in high speed in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against one C.N. Lokesh on N.H.48,
B.M. Road, near Gowrammanahalli bridge, Channarayapatna Town,
while he was proceeding on Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle
bearing registration No.KA-13-A-6526. RW-1 was subjected to cross
examination and he has denied all the suggestions regarding
involvement of offending vehicle and having falsely implicated the
insured vehicle. He also denied for having falsely implicated the
driver of the offending vehicle for the purpose of compensation.
- 10 -
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
15. Further, the Insurance company also examined its officer
one Sri. Girish Patil as RW-2. He admits that the charge sheet filed
by the Investigating Officer against the driver of the offending vehicle
and involvement of vehicle has not been challenged before any
competent forum. The case of RW-2 was of total denial.
16. On the other hand, the evidence of PW-1 and contents of
Ex-P1, Exs-P3-P7, Ex-P12, they clearly establishes that as on the
date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle came in rash
and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of the
deceased. Hence, he sustained severe injury and on the following
day, he succumbed to the injuries. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others reported in (2011) 4
SCC 693, held that, it is not expected that a person would rush to
police station after accident rather than the treatment of victim is
prime consideration over lodging FIR.
17. It is true that, the claim application cannot be dismissed
only on the score of delay in lodging the complaint, but, if it is not
explained sufficiently, when there is doubt about the involvement of
the vehicle and have not come with clean hands, the claim
application would definitely fail.
18. In the instant cases, the accident occurred on 19.02.2011
and in the complaint, the name of the vehicle is not mentioned and
- 11 -
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
subsequently the vehicle was traced. It is proved by the post mortem
report that the deceased Lokesh died on 20.02.2011 and he suffered
injuries in the road traffic accident. The Investigation Officer deposed
on oath that, the offending vehicle had caused the accident and thus,
he seized the vehicle in question. Thus, the Insurance company has
failed to prove that, the offending vehicle was implanted for the
purpose of compensation. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly opined that
the driver of the offending vehicle had caused the accident.
19. Sofar as the contentions raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant-Insurance company with regard to mandatory
provisions of Section 134(c), 158(5) of M.V. Act and Rule 235 of the
Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the concerned authority has to
comply those provisions and these provisions itself make it clear that
the concerned authority/person has to comply the statutory
provisions. Moreover, The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation
as it aims to enhance road safety and provide compensation to the
accident victims and their families. Therefore, non-compliance of the
aforesaid provisions could not lead to reject the claim petitions.
Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for
Insurance company in this regard.
20. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, at the
time of the accident, the deceased was working as Police constable
and the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at
- 12 -
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
Rs.9,625/- p.m., considering Ex-P10 salary certificate. Contrary to
this document, the Insurance company has not placed any document.
Thus, the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,625/- per month,
is fair and reasonable one. The deceased was aged 26 years at the
time of the accident. The Insurance company has not disputed this
aspect. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, the multiplier
applicable to the age group of the deceased is '17'. The
deceased died bachelor leaving behind his father, mother,
unmarried sister and brother and therefore, the proper
deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased would
be 50%. The Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in
AIR 2017 SC 5157 has rightly considered future prospects at
50%, since the deceased was Government employee and below
the age of '40' years. Thus, the 'loss of dependency' works out to
Rs.14,72,625/-(Rs.9,625 +50% = 14,437.5 - 50%= Rs.7,218.75 x
12 x 17).
21. Sofar as conventional heads are concerned, the Tribunal
has not awarded any compensation under the head 'loss of
- 13 -
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
consortium'. In view of the principles laid down in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the claimants are entitled for
Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each x 4)under the head 'loss of
consortium', Rs.15,000/- each under the head 'loss of estate' and
'funeral expenses'. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards
'medical expenses', which is fair and reasonable one and no
interference is called for in that regard.
22. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following
compensation:-
Compensation under different Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 14,72,625/-
Towards loss of consortium 1,60,000/-
Towards loss of estate 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Medical expenses 25,000/-
TOTAL 16,87,625/-
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal
- 22,69,320/-
REDUCTION - 5,81,695/-
23. The claimants are entitled to a compensation of
Rs.16,87,625/- as against Rs.22,69,320/- awarded by the tribunal.
Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
1. MFA No.3413/2015 filed by the Insurance company
is allowed-in-part.
- 14 -
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
2. MFA.Crob.No.131/2017 filed by the Cross-
objectors/claimants is allowed-in-part.
3. The judgment and award dated 28.01.2015 passed
in MVC No.113/2011 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge, Channarayapatna is modified to the extent
stated hereinabove.
4. The claimants are entitled for total compensation of
Rs.16,87,625/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its
realization as against Rs.22,69,320/- awarded by
the Tribunal with reduced compensation of
Rs.5,81,695/-.
5. The Insurance Company shall deposit the entire
compensation with accrued interest at 6% p.a.
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of the judgment.
6. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit shall be in
terms of order of the Tribunal.
7. Draw the modified award accordingly.
- 15 -
C/W MFA CROB.131 of 2017
8. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Tribunal, along with its records.
9. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MN/-
CT: VR
