[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Kusumavathi P vs Fedric Vas on 10 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6652 OF 2013 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1412 OF 2013
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3409 OF 2013
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8139 OF 2014
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8140 OF 2014
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2397 OF 2015 (MV-D)
MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 45 OF 2013
IN MFA No. 6652/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SMT VIAJAYALAKSHMI. K
W/O LATE VEDAVYASA RAO,
Digitally signed 2. H. MADHU BHAT
by
PADMASHREE AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
SHEKHAR DESAI S/O LATE VEDAVYASA RAO,
Location: High
Court of BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
Karnataka "PRANAVA HOUSE"
NEAR RAGHAVENDRA MUTT,
DARBE, SAMATHADKA VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT DEEPA S RAO
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
M/S. MANJUNATHA ROADLINES,
SHOP NO.8, P.V.S CENTENARY BUILDING,
R/O GUMPAKALLU HOUSE,
KODIALBAIL,
MANGALORE-575 003.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
DIVISION OFFICE-P.O. BOX NO. 705,
1ST FLOOR, RAMABHAVAN COMPLEX,
KODIALBAIL,
MANGALORE-575 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.348/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT-IV & III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.,
MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 1412/2013
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
P.B.NO. 705, 1ST FLOOR
RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE, D.K
BY REGIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSONCIRCLE
BANGALORE-560027
BY ITS MANAGER
...APPELLANT
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
(BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KUSUMAVATHI P.
AGE: 63 YEARS
W/O LATE M N RAMACHANDRAGOWDA
2. SUMA R K
AGE: 34 YEARS
D/O LATE M N RAMACHANDRAGOWDA
3. BHAVYA R K
AGE: 28 YEARS
D/O LATE M N RAMACHANDRAGOWDA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
"SUPRIBHA" HOUSE
NEAR SRINIVASA NURSHING HOME
SAMYETHADKA, DARBE
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574 203
4. SMT. DEEPA RAO
MAJOR
W/O M SADASHIVJA RAO
MANJUNATHA ROADLINES
SHOP NO. 8, PVS CENTURY BUILDING
KIDIALBAIL,MANGALORE-575 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANIL BABU .C, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3,
V/O DTD:12.02.2013 NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED28.8.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.119/2009 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-III AND II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K, MANGALORE, AWARDING
A COMPENSATION OF RS.10,60,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6%
P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
IN MFA NO. 3409/2013
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMANY LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
B NO. 705, 1ST FLOOR
RAMBHAVAN COMLEX
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE D K-03
BY REGIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560027
BY ITS MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT K VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE VEDAVYASA RAO
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
2. H MADHU BHAT
S/O LATE VEDAVYASA RAO
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
"PRANAVA HOUSE"
NEAR RAGHAVENDRA MUTT DARBE,
SAMATHADKA VILLAGE
PUTTUR TALUK-574 201
3. SMT DEEPA S RAO
W/O M SADASHIVA RAO
MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA ROADLINES
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
SHOP NO. 8, PVS CENTENARY
BUILDING,, KIDIALBAIL
MANGALORE-575 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2,
V/O DTD:17.04.2013 NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 08.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.348/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-IV, D.K.,
MANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.5,41,000/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO. 8139/2014
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
P B NO.705, IST FLOOR
RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE DK
BY REGIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560027
BY ITS MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR SHEIK AHAMAD SAHEB
S/O SHEIK MOHAMMED YUSUF
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
2. MRS ZUBAIDA SHEIK AHAMAD
W/O SHEIK AHMAD SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
3. SHEIK SHAHEER
S/O SHEIK AHAMAD SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
4. MS SAYEEDARA AHAMAD
D/O SHEIK AHAMAD SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 18 YEAS
ALL ARE R/A SHEIK MANZIL
NEAR OLD KEB
VITTAL, DK-574 243
5. SMT DEEPA S RAO
MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA ROADLINES
SHOP NO.8, PVS CENTENARY BUILDING
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE-575001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K RANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED19.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.251/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-III, D.K., MANGALORE,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,72,000/- WITH INTEREST
@ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO. 8140/2014
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
P B NO.705, IST FLOOR
RAMBAHVANA COMPLEX
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE DK
BY REGIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
NRUPATHUGNA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560027
BY ITS MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR PHILIP LIGORI NORONHA
S/O LATE IGNATIUS NORONHA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. SMT FLORA NORONHA
W/O PHILIP LIGORI NORONHA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/A NO.ST.JOSEPH
NAGAR JEPPU,
MANGALORE TALUK-575 001.
3. SMT DEEPA S RAO
MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA ROADLINES
SHOP NO.8, PVS CENTENARY BUILDING
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE-575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURU PRASAD .B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2,
R3-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED10.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.279/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-III, D.K., MANGALORE,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,80,000/- WITH
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO. 2397/2015
BETWEEN:
1. MR PHILIP LIGORI NORONHA
S/O LATE IGNATIUS NOROHNA,
AGED 66 YEARS,
2. SMT. FLORA NORONHA
W/O PHILIP LIGORI NORONHA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT ST.JOSEPH NAGAR,
JEPPU, MANGALORE TALUK
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B.R. GURUPRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,
DIVISION OFFICE, POST BOX NO.705,
1ST FLOOR, RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX,
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE 575001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
2. SMT. DEEPA S. ROA
AGE MAJOR,
M/S.MANJUNATHA ROADLINES,
SHOP NO.8, PVS CENTENARY BUILDING,
KODAILBAIL, MANGALORE-575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1.
R2-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 10.2.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.279/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
SESSIONS JUDE, MACT-3, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA.CROB NO. 45/2013
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. KUSUMAVATHI P
W/O LATE M N RAMACHANDRAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT "SUPRIBHA" HOUSE,
NEAR SRINIVASA NURSING HOME
SAMYETHADKA, DARBE
PUTTUR TALUK, D K -574 203.
2. SUMA R K
D/O LATE M N RAMACHANDRAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT "SUPRIBHA" HOUSE,
NEAR SRINIVASA NURSING HOME
SAMYETHADKA, DARBE
PUTTUR TALUK D K -574 203.
3. BHAVYA R K
D/O LATE M N RAMACHANDRAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT "SUPRIBHA" HOUSE,
NEAR SRINIVASA NURSING HOME
SAMYETHADKA, DARBE
PUTTUR TALUK D K -574 203.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. ANIL BABU .C, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY .T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. FEDRIC VAS,
S/O LATE FRANKI VAS
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT BERETTO COMPOUND,
K.K. GATE, KUNDAPURA,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-567 101.
2. SMT DEEPA S RAO
MANJUNATHA ROAD LINES
SHOP NO.8
PVS CENTRY BUILDING, KODIALBAIL
MANGALORE, D.K.-575 101.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE:
P B NO. 705, 1ST FLOOR
RAMBHVAN COMPLEX
KODIALBAIL
MANGALORE D K-575 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. OM MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R3, R2-SERVED,
V/O DTD:30.07.2024-APPEAL AGAINST R1 IS ABATED)
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.1412/2013 FILED U/O 41,
RULE 22(1) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED28.8.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.119/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT, MEMBER, MACT-3, D.K.,
MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE MFA AND MFA CROB HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 28.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 6652 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 1412 of 2013
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
MFA CROB No. 45 of 2013
CAV JUDGMENT
In M.F.A. No.6652/2013 and M.F.A. No.3409/2013
M.F.A. No.6652/2013 is filed by the claimants and M.F.A.
No.3409/2013 is filed by insurance company against the
judgment and award dated 08.01.2013 MACT-IV and III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore, In MVC
No.348/2009.
2. One H. Vikram Bhat, met with an accident on
03.11.2008 and died subsequently. His mother and brother
filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.
The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record,
granted compensation of Rs.5,41,000/- with interest at 6% per
annum from the date of petition till realization and respondent
No.2 insurance company was directed to deposit the amount
within two months from the date of the award.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, M.F.A. No.6652/2013 is
filed seeking enhancement in which it is contended that Vikram
Bhat was very intelligent, obtained Bachelor degree in
Computer Applications from Sree Devi College of Information
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
Science, affiliated to Mangalore University. After education in
December 2007, there was an offer letter to him to work as
Sales Development Manager in HDFC standard Life Insurance
Company Ltd. located at Mangalore with a salary of
Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. They filed salary certificate, but the
Tribunal has considered his income as Rs.6,000/- per month,
which is on lower side. The Tribunal also erred in calculating
compensation under various heads, and interest is to be
granted at the rate of 8% per annum instead of 6%.
4. The insurance company has filed M.F.A.
No.3409/2013 contending that Tribunal without considering
contributing negligence on the part of the driver of the car in
which deceased was travelling gave finding that driver of the
bus in question was on the extreme left side of the road as per
Exhibit P6 sketch. It was open for vehicles plying in both
directions as other portion of the road was blocked for the
purpose of construction of a flyover at that stretch of road. The
width of the road as per Exhibit P6 indicates that total width
was 30 feet from the place of impact between two vehicles and
there was clear 20 feet free space on the left side of the car,
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
and it shows that the accident was due to the sole negligence
of Vikram Bhat as there was no obstruction for clear visibility at
07.30 a.m. Head Constable who gave complaint was not an
eyewitness, and he went to the spot only after receiving
information. The reasoning of the Tribunal to hold that the bus
driver alone was negligent based on the police investigation
reports, was not proved by examining the concerned
Investigating Officer, and it is not proper and correct. Tribunal
has granted Rs. 5,14,800/- under head of loss of dependency,
by taking the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month
and adding 30% towards future prospect and deducting 50%
towards self expenses and taking the multiplier of his mother
as 11. Vikram Bhat was aged 25 years and he would have
married in near future and have contributed more and thus,
one third is to be deducted, as other elder brother, aged 29
years, would also contribute to the welfare of the mother of
deceased and thus, requested for setting aside the award of the
Tribunal.
5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both
sides.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
6. These appeals arise out of the same accident occurred
on 03.11.2008 within the limits of Panambur Police Station,
Mangaluru, in which United India Insurance Company Limited
has seriously disputed the contributory negligence on their
part. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to discuss
regarding the said negligence aspect on the part of United India
Insurance Company Ltd.
7. The manner of accident shows that on 03.11.2008,
while Vikram Bhat along with his four friends were coming from
Udupi towards Mangalore on NH-17 in a Ford Icon car bearing
registration number KA-12B-2277 at about 07.30 a.m. and car
reached in front of JB petrol bunk, Panambur which is one way
traffic was hit by Ashok Leyland bus bearing registration No.KA-
19B-2273 driven by its driver in a rash and negligence manner
with high speed. It was coming from opposite direction, and it
entered the one way track from Kulur Bridge onwards. Due to
the impact, Vikram Bhat and his friends who were travelling in
the car seriously injured and three persons succumbed to the
injuries at the spot. Vikram Bhat and another one were
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
admitted in A.J.I.M.S. Mangalore and later, they succumbed to
injuries.
8. Respondent No.1 and 2 appeared through their
counsels and filed written statement. Respondent No.1-owner
of the vehicle contended that accident is due to the negligence
and due to the carelessness of the driver of the car in the
process of overtaking stationary vehicle in excessive speed and
unmindful of either the vehicles coming in its direction or the
ongoing four lane work that was in progress, dashed the bus
without giving any time for the bus to avoid the accident. Bus
was on its way from Bangalore to Kundapur and it was made to
travel in that part of the road on account of traffic sign boards
to travel in the said stretch of national highway near Panambur
beach road junction on account of ongoing four lane work that
was in progress. As such, there was no negligence on the part
of the bus driver and respondent No.1 also denied other
aspects of the petition.
9. Respondent No.2-insurance company stated that the
person who was driving the vehicle was not their driver. The
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
criminal case filed against him ended in acquittal. The driver of
the bus was not working under first respondent and he cannot
be held responsible for the accident and for any contributing
negligence. The further stated that bus was insured with them.
10. Petitioner No.2-brother of the deceased was
examined as PW1 and they also examined the complainant as
PW2 and they filed Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P16 to support their
case. Respondents have not examined any witnesses, but filed
Exhibit R1 copy of the insurance policy and R2 copy of the
judgment in S.C. No.16 of 2019.
11. It was stated that petitioner No.2 has given evidence
as P.W.1 and he stated regarding the accident on the basis of
information received by him. Respondent No.1 has not cross
examined and respondent No.2 has not denied the accident in
the cross-examination. Exhibit P1 is the FIR registered by
Panambur Police in Crime No.147 of 2008 for an offence
punishable under Section 279, 228, 304(A) IPC. Exhibit P2 is
the complaint given by one Narayana Hedge, Head Constable,
who is examined as P.W.2. Exhibit P3 is a requisition filed by
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
Circle Police Inspector contending, claiming that they registered
a case. It is stated that driver of the bus knowing fully well
driving the bus in the opposite direction in one way though
there was no problem for going in a proper route. As such,
they converted the said section into Section 304 IPC. Initially,
they filed complaint in Crime No. 147 of 2008 for an offences
under Section 217 and 304(B) IPC and later, converted the
same into 304 IPC. Exhibit P4 is the intimation given by police
under Section 160 of MV Act. Exhibit P5 is the scene of offence
panchanama. As per Exhibit P5, accident occurred on NH17,
Udupi-Mangalore, near petrol bunk on the western side and
towards north, there is 30 feet wide new road coming from
Udupi to Mangalore, there is also divider in between two roads
which is about 3 feet and towards western side of the said
divider i.e. Mangaluru-Udupi, 30 feet road. The petitioner
produced hand sketch map which clearly indicates that there is
divider in between 30 feet road on either side and the bus
came in a wrong side. Exhibit P6 is sketch. Exhibit P7 is the
P.M. report of the Vikram Bhat. Exhibit P8 is the motor vehicle
inspection report and it indicates damage to both vehicles. RTO
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
opined that accident is not due to mechanical defects of the
vehicles. Exhibit P15 is the charge sheet against the driver of
the bus. Exhibit P16 is the copy of the order which indicates
that bus was released by respondent No.1 and case was
committed to the Sessions Court.
12. P.W.2 stated that, on intimation, he went to the spot
and found there was head on collusion between bus and car.
He denied the suggestion that vehicles were moving only
on one side and work was going on other side. He stated
that work was not going on the other side of the road.
Respondent No.1 has not denied the accident and respondent
No.2 has not adduced any evidence. Merely, because the
criminal case ended in acquittal, it cannot be said that there is
no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It
was further observed that the driver of the bus moved the bus
in one way traffic from opposite direction, that itself indicates
that he was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner
knowing fully well that vehicles are not permitted to come from
the opposite direction in one way traffic, therefore, it can't be
said there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
13. The learned counsel for insurance company
contended that the insurance company mainly relied upon
Exhibit P6-Sketch and stated that bus was on the extreme left
side of the road which was open for vehicles plying in both
directions. The other portion of the road was blocked for the
purpose of construction of a flyover. But PW2 in his evidence
has clearly stated that road was not blocked on the other side
and bus came on the wrong side of the road in one way from
opposite direction and dashed the car. Respondents, though
denied negligence on their part, have not examined any other
witness and simply relied upon Exhibit R2 copy of the judgment
in S.C. No.16 of 2009 in which driver of the bus was acquitted
merely because the case ended in acquittal. It cannot be said
that there is no negligence on his part and moreover, the
judgment in criminal case is not binding on the MACT.
14. Learned counsel for Insurance company also raised
another objection that petition is bad for non-joiner of
necessary party and the owner and insurer of the Ford icon car
were not made as parties. Respondent No.2-insurance
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
company filed copy of the insurance policy of the bus Ashok
Leyland Bus with registration No.KA-19B-2273 under Exhibit
R1. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle, insured the vehicle
with respondent No.2 and the policy was in existence as on the
date of accident, as such, based on the available oral and
documented evidence, the Tribunal has clearly held that there
is negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Therefore,
the argument of the learned counsel for the insurance company
cannot be considered. Accordingly, this Court holds the entire
negligence is on the part of the driver of the bus.
15. It is stated that Vikram Bhat was working as Sales
Department Manager in HDFC Standard Life Insurance
Company with a salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. Ex.P.10 is
the offer letter. It is stated that appointment letter was
produced and his total salary was Rs.13,490/- and he was
working from 13.12.2007 till the date of accident. Therefore,
this Court finds it reasonable to take income of Vikram Bhat as
Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. As per the PM report, he was aged
25 years and the multiplier is 18. Therefore, as per the
guidelines in the case of National Insurance Company
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1, he is entitled for 40% towards
future prospects as he was working as a private employee, and
as he was a bachelor, 50% is to be deducted towards personal
expenses as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2.
Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.25,20,000/-
(2,00,000 + 40% - 50% x 18).
16. Further, as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance
Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram &
others3, and in the case of United India Insurance
Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur
and others4, the 1st petitioner-mother of Vikram Bhat is
entitled for Rs.40,000/- under head loss of filial consortium.
Rs.30,000/- is awarded under conventional heads, as per the
guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
(2020) 9 SCC 644
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi5. Thus, the
total compensation comes to Rs.25,90,000/-.
17. In all, the claimants are entitled for the
compensation of Rs.25,90,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
as against Rs.5,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
18. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal
is modified as under:
Heads Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of Dependency 25,20,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium 40,000/-
3. Towards conventional heads 30,000/-
Total 25,90,000/-
19. In the result, the following order is passed:
(i) M.F.A. No.6652/2015 filed by the claimants is
allowed in part, and M.F.A No.3409/2013 filed by insurance
company is dismissed.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
(ii) The claimants are entitled for the total
compensation of Rs.25,90,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) Respondent No.2-insurance company in M.F.A.
No.6652/2013 has already deposited the award amount before
the Tribunal, and therefore, they are directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of Rs.20,49,000/- with interest at 6% per
annum within one month from the date of this order.
(iv) On such deposit, the 1st petitioner-mother of
Vikram Bhat is alone permitted to withdraw entire amount
along with interest accrued on it, as the 2nd petitioner is major
and not dependent on deceased.
In M.F.A. No.1412 of 2013 and MFA Cr.ob. No.45/2013
20. M.F.A. No.1412/2013 is filed by insurance company
and MFA Cr.ob. No.45/2013 is filed by claimants against the
judgment and award dated 28.08.2012 passed in MVC
No.119/2009 by the Member, MACT-III and II Additional
District Judge, D.K. Mangalore. One R.K. Preetham, aged
about 26 years, met with an accident on 03.11.2008 and died
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
subsequently. His mother and sisters filed claim petition
claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The Tribunal,
considering the entire evidence on record, granted
compensation of Rs.10,60,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till deposit.
21. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance company
has preferred appeal in M.F.A. No.1412/2013 on the similar
grounds, as mentioned in the aforesaid appeals filed by the
insurance company. The claimants filed M.F.A. Cr.ob.
No.45/2013 in compensation mainly contending that the
Tribunal has taken multiplier as 17 instead of 19. As deceased
was 26 years, 30% income is to be taken up towards loss of
future prospects and Tribunal granted meagre amounts under
other heads and thus, requested for enhancement of
compensation.
22. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.
23. It is stated that Preetham was working in Max New
York Life Insurance Ltd. (Y.S. Bank), Mangalore and getting a
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
salary of Rs.20,300/-. The petitioners examined PW2-Vivek to
prove that Preetham was working as an Assistant Manager and
an eye witness as PW3. PW2 produced salary certificate as per
Ex.P.11, authorisation letter Ex.P.14. It was stated that
Preetham was working on contract basis. As per salary
certificate, he was getting a salary of Rs.20,298/- per month,
but it was not mentioned as to whether he was working on
probation or his employment was confirmed or not. He entered
into the service in the year 2007 and he met with an accident
on 03.11.2008. PW2 stated that the salary would be credited to
his bank account, but it was not filed before the Court. Though
PW2 stated that Preetham was working with them, they have
not filed any records regarding the salary. But the Tribunal has
taken his salary as Rs.20,300/- per month, i.e. Rs.2,43,600/-
per annum. Out of which, Rs.9,360/- was deducted towards
income tax and the salary per annum is Rs.2,34,240/-.
Preetham is entitled for 40% towards his future prospects but
the Tribunal has erred in taking the same as 50%. 50% is to
be deducted towards his personal expenses as he was a
bachelor. So the loss of dependency comes to Rs.29,51,424/-
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
(2,34,240 + 40% - 50% x 18). Petitioner No.1 being the
mother is entitled or Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium. The
petitioners are entitled for Rs.30,000/- under conventional
heads. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.30,21,424/-.
24. In all, the claimants are entitled for the
compensation of Rs.30,21,424/- with interest at 6% per annum
as against Rs.10,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
25. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is
modified as under:
Heads Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of Dependency 29,51,424/-
2. Loss of Consortium 40,000/-
3. Towards conventional heads 30,000/-
Total 30,21,424/-
26. In the result, the following order is passed:
(i) M.F.A. No.1412/2013 filed by the insurance
company is dismissed and M.F.A. Cr.ob. No.45/2013 filed by
the claimants is allowed in part.
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
(ii) The claimants are entitled for the total
compensation of Rs.30,21,424/- with interest at 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) The respondent insurance company has already
deposited the award amount before the Tribunal, and therefore,
they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
Rs.19,61424/- with interest at 6% per annum within one month
from the date of this order.
(iv) On such deposit, the petitioner No.1 being mother
of deceased alone is permitted to withdraw entire amount along
with interest accrued on it. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are married
sisters of Preetham and it cannot be said that they are
depending on him, and as such, they are not entitled for any
compensation.
27. This appeal is filed by the insurance company against
the judgment and award dated 19.02.2014 passed by MACT-III
and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore,
In MVC No.251/2009. One Sheik Shameer, aged about 21
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
years, met with an accident on 03.11.2008 and died
subsequently. His parents, brother and sister filed claim
petition claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-. The
Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted
compensation of Rs.4,72,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization.
28. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed
whereby the insurance company has urged the grounds as
mentioned in M.F.A. No.3409/2013, wherein the grounds are
written in detail, and thus, requested for reducing the
compensation.
29. In this case, the claimants have examined PW2 as an
eye witness to the occurrence and he stated that bus was
proceeding from Mangaluru towards Udupi in high speed and
car was coming from Udupi towards Mangaluru. Driver of the
bus came in a wrong side and dashed the car and caused the
accident. He has given the statement before the police.
30. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both
sides.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
31. The issue of negligence and liability of the insurance
company is already discussed in paragraphs 7 to 14 of this
judgment and as such, it need not be repeated.
32. As per Exhibit P7 and Exhibit P9, age of the victim is
mentioned as 21 years and he was born on 24.08.1986.
Exhibit P11 is the copy of death certificate and Exhibit P13 is
the copy of the passport. He was serving as Sales Manager in
Sharif Electronics Dubai UAE, and earning 3,250 Diarms per
month, equivalent to Rs.39,000/- per month in Indian currency.
It was observed that P.W.1 has not produced any evidence to
show that deceased had gone to Dubai and worked there, and
P.W.1 has not produced Visa and any record to show about his
stay in the Dubai. No proper entries are forthcoming in Exhibit
P13. No bank account is produced. Salary slip is also not filed.
Though claimants have not examined any other person from
Sharif Electronics to prove employment and income of
deceased, P.W.1, in the cross-examination, stated that her son
was studying BCA in Shridevi College. Therefore, the Tribunal
taken the notional income of deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
and Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record,
granted compensation of Rs.4,72,000/-. This Court finds no
reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
In M.F.A. No.2397/2015 and M.F.A. No.8140/2014
33. M.F.A. No.2397/2015 is filed by the claimants and
M.F.A. No.8140/2014 is filed by the insurance company against
the judgment and award dated 10.02.2014 passed by MACT-III
and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore,
in MVC No.279/2009. One Lionel Michael Noronha, aged about
22 years, met with an accident on 03.11.2018 and died
subsequently. His parents filed claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the
entire evidence on record, granted compensation of
Rs.5,80,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization.
34. Aggrieved by the said order, M.F.A. No.2397/2015 is
filed seeking enhancement in which it is contended that the
deceased was aged 22 years, studied BCA from Sree Devi
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
College, Mangalore and selected by Royal Arabian Tours at
Mangalore and getting a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month, but
the Tribunal has taken only Rs.5,000/- per month and Tribunal
has not added 50% towards future prospects and erred in
deducting 50% towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd.
The amounts granted under the other heads are meagre, and
thus, requested for enhancement.
35. M.F.A. No.8140/2014 is filed by insurance company
in which it is contended that the Tribunal has and erred in
deducting 50% towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd and
the multiplier of 11 should have been applied considering the
age of mother of deceased, and thus, requested for reduction in
compensation.
36. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both
sides.
37. The issue of negligence in these cases is already
discussed in paragraphs 7 to 14 of this judgment, and as such,
it need not be repeated.
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
38. Exhibit P9 is the course completion certificate.
Exhibit P11 is the Bachelor of Computer Application Certificate.
Exhibit P12 is SSLC Marks. Exhibit P15 and Exhibit P16 are the
election identity cards. Lionel Michael Noronha was born on
08.09.1986. As such he was aged 22 years at the time of
accident and the multiplier is 18. Petitioner produced Exhibit
P17 copy of Power of Attorney, Exhibit P18 is trade licence,
Exhibit P19 is letter of Appointment and Exhibit P21 muster roll
to show his attendance, but it does not bear his signature.
Exhibit P20 is the salary wage register and it is marked as
subject to the objection, and it is mentioned that salary of
October 2008 was paid to his mother. There are no other
previous reports regarding work and salary. If at all he worked
as Operative Executive prior to the accident, he would have put
his signature in the attendance register and received salary. As
such, Tribunal held that Exhibit P20 and P21 are not inspiring
the confidence and taken his income as Rs.5,000/- per month.
Petitioner examined the employer as PW2 and he stated that he
was serving in their travel agency and getting a salary of
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
Rs.8,000/- per month and he issued Exhibit P8 salary certificate
and he also produced Muster Roll.
39. Admittedly, as per the salary register wages of
October month were received by his mother and in the register,
it was mentioned as Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, this
Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take notional
income of Lionel Michael Noronha as Rs.8,000/- per month. He
was aged 22 years. He is entitled for 40% towards future
prospects and 50% is to be deducted towards his personal
expenses as he was a bachelor at the time of the accident.
Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,09,600/- (8,000
+ 40% x 12 x 18 - 50%). Petitioners No.1 and no. 2 are
parents of the deceased and each of them are entitled for an
amount of Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium and they are
also entitled for Rs.30,000/- under the Conventional heads.
Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.13,19,600/-.
40. In all, the claimants are entitled for the
compensation of Rs.13,19,600/- with interest at 6% per annum
as against Rs.5,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
41. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal
is modified as under:
Heads Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of Dependency 12,09,600/-
2. Loss of Consortium 80,000/-
3. Towards conventional heads 30,000/-
Total 13,19,600/-
42. In the result, the following order is passed:
(i) M.F.A. No.2397/2015 filed by the claimants is
allowed in part, and M.F.A No.8140/2014 filed by insurance
company is dismissed.
(ii) The claimants are entitled for the total
compensation of Rs.13,19,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) Respondent No.1-insurance company in M.F.A.
No.2397/2015 has already deposited the award amount before
the Tribunal, and therefore, they are directed to deposit the
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7949
MFA No. 3409 of 2013, MFA No. 8139 of 2014
HC-KAR MFA No. 8140 of 2014, MFA No. 2397 of 2015
enhanced amount of Rs.7,39,600/- with interest at 6% per
annum within one month from the date of this order.
(iv) On such deposit, both the parents are permitted to
withdraw entire amount along with interest accrued on it,
equally.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
CS
CT:NR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 101
