[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Manager Liberty General Insurnace ... vs Smt Anusha on 17 March, 2026

                                             -1-
                                                       MFA No. 7005 of 2021
                                                   C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                         DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                          PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
                                            AND
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
                 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7005 OF 2021 (MV-D)
                                            C/W
                 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2185 OF 2023 (MV-D)


                 IN MFA No. 7005/2021

                 BETWEEN:

                 1.    THE MANAGER
                       M/S. LIBERTY GENERAL INSURNACE CO. LTD.,
                       (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LIBERTY VIDEOCON
                       GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,)
                       PRESENTLY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
                       NO. 21/15, "THE LANDMARK"
                       4TH FLOOR
                       NEAR TRINITY METRO STATION
                       MG ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001
Digitally              REP. BY MANAGER
signed by
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE
SUSHMA                                                     ...APPELLANT
LAKSHMI          (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka        AND:

                 1.     SMT. ANUSHA
                        W/O LATE MANJUNATHA H S
                        AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

                 2.     MASTER NISCHITH S.M.
                        S/O. LATE MANJUNATHA H S
                        AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS
                            -2-
                                     MFA No. 7005 of 2021
                                 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023




3.   MASTER PREETHAM S M
     S/O LATE MANJUNATH H S
     AGED 2 YEARS

     SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE
     MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
     AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT

4.   SMT. SHARADAMMA
     W/O. HANUMANTHARAJU
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT
     NO.3, SRIGIRIPURA
     MAGADI TALUK
     BENGALUGU RURAL DISTRICT

5.   MANJUNATH R
     S/O. LATE RAMASWAMY

     SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL
     REPRESENTATIVE

5(a) SMT. BANNAMMA B
     W/O. LATE MANJUNATH R
     AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
     RESIDING AT NO.12/2, 10TH CROSS
     JAI MARUTHI NAGAR
     NANDINI LAYOUT
     BENGALURU - 560 096.


                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MUNIYAPPA C R GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-R4;
    SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.28.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2459/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
(SCCH-14) AND ETC.,
                              -3-
                                       MFA No. 7005 of 2021
                                   C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023


IN MFA NO. 2185/2023

BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. ANUSHA
       W/O LATE MANJUNATH H.S.
       AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

2.     MASTER NISCHITH S.M.
       S/O. LATE MANJUNATHA H.S.
       AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS

3.     MASTER PREETHAM S.M.
       S/O LATE MANJUNATHA S.M.
       AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS

4.     SMT.SHARADAMMA
       W/O HANUMANTHARAJU
       AGED 50 YEARS,

       SINCE APPELLANT NOS.2 & 3 ARE MINORS,
       REPTD. BY THEIR
       NATURAL GUARDIAN
       AND MOTHER
       SMT. ANUSHA-APPELLANT NO.1

       ALL ARE R/AT NO.3,
       SRIGIRIPURA,
       MAGADI TALUK,
       BENGALURU
       RURAL DISTRICT.
                                            ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAJU S, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     SRI. MANJUNATHA .R
       S/O LATE RAMASWAMY,

       SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.,

1(a) SMT. BANNAMMA B
     W/O. LATE MANJUNATH R
                              -4-
                                       MFA No. 7005 of 2021
                                   C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023


      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
      RESIDING AT
      NO.12/2,
      10TH CROSS
      JAI MARUTHI NAGAR
      NANDINI LAYOUT
      BENGALURU NORTH
      BENGALURU - 560 096.

2.    LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL
      INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
      OFFICE NO.1, ALYASA,
      1ST FLOOR
      REAR PORTION,
      OLD NO.28
      NEW NO.23,
      RICHMOND ROAD
      BENGALURU - 25
      REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR LR., OF R1)


      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.10.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO.2459/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT,
XVI   ADDITONAL   JUDGE,   COURT     OF   SMALL    CAUSES,
BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-14) AND ETC.,


      THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN RESERVED, COMING ON
FOR     PRONOUNCEMENT      OF      JUDGMENT,      THIS   DAY,
S RACHAIAH J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
          and
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
                              -5-
                                       MFA No. 7005 of 2021
                                   C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023


                   CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

1. Heard Sri Raju S., learned counsel for the appellants, Sri

Ravi S.Samprathi, learned counsel for the respondent

No.2 and Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel for legal

heir of deceased respondent No.1 in Miscellaneous First

Appeal No.2185/2023.

2. Heard Sri Ravi S. Samprathi, learned counsel for the

appellant, Sri Muniyappa C.R. Gowda, learned counsel

for C/respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri R. Shashidhara,

learned counsel for the respondent No.5 in Miscellaneous

First Appeal No.7005/2021.

3. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2185/2023 is filed by the

claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, being

aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.10.2021

in MVC No.2459/2019 passed by the XVI Additional

Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru,

(SCCH-14) (for short 'Tribunal'), whereas, Miscellaneous

First Appeal No.7005/2021 is filed by the Insurance

Company challenging the quantum and liability of the

Insurer.

4. The ranks of the parties before the Tribunal will be

considered henceforth for convenience.

The factual matrix of the case is as under:

5. On 04.09.2018 at about 10.30 p.m., Manjunath was

proceeding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing

its registration No.KA.02.HK.5635 with his relative from

Dabaspet towards Sreegiripura. It is further stated that

the said motorcycle was being driven by its rider at a

very high speed, recklessly and in a rash and negligent

manner, endangering human life, without observing the

traffic rules and regulations. When the said motorcycle

reached near Honnenahalli Thandya, Sompura Hobli,

Nelamangala Taluk, the rider of the motorcycle, without

observing the road hump, lost his control over the

vehicle, as a result of which, the pillion rider was thrown

off from the motorcycle, consequently, he fell down and

sustained grievous injuries on head, left shoulder, face

and other parts of the body. He was shifted to Sparsh

Hospital as an indoor-patient and then, shifted to

Basavashree Diagnostics and then, shifted to Sparsh

Hospital. However, he succumbed to the injuries on

23.02.2019.

6. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased

Manjunath, approached the Tribunal for compensation.

The Tribunal awarded Rs.32,56,100/- along with

interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of

the petition till its realization.

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2185/2023

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the

claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal seeking

for enhancement of compensation.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that

the deceased was running a barbershop and he was

earning Rs.30,000/- per month, the said fact ought to

have been considered by the Tribunal. However, the

income of the deceased was taken at Rs.9,000/- per

month, which needs to be enhanced. Similarly, the

medical expenditure borne by the deceased was more

than Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded a

meagre amount as medical expenditure that needs to be

modified.

9. It is further submitted that the compensation under

other heads ought to have been enhanced by the

Tribunal in accordance with the settled principles of law.

Having failed to enhance the said compensation, resulted

in filing of this appeal. Therefore, the compensation has

to be re-determined as per the records produced before

the Tribunal by allowing this appeal. Making such

submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prays to

allow the appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance

Company vehemently submitted that, in fact, both the

quantum and liability are disputed and a separate appeal

has been filed challenging the award passed by the

Tribunal. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is against to the settled principles of law and

hence, the same has to be reduced. Making such

submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.2

prays to reject the appeal.

11. Be that as it may, the Tribunal has considered the

income of the deceased is of Rs.9,000/- per month.

However, there is no justification for considering the said

income. In fact, the accident occurred on 04.09.2018.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

claimants that the deceased was working as a Barber

and he was earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month.

Having considered the said aspect, we deem it

appropriate to consider the income of the deceased at

Rs.14,000/- per month.

12. Further, it has also been considered that the appellants

are the legal heirs of the deceased Manjunath, and there

are four dependants in all. Therefore, 1/4th of the

income of the deceased has to be deducted towards

personal expenditure. The Tribunal has deducted

accordingly. Hence, there is no irregularity in the said

deduction.

13. Further, the loss of consortium had to be considered by

the Tribunal as per the settled principle of law, i.e.,

Rs.40,000/- per person.

14. Having considered the said aspects and also after having

gone through the medical bills produced by the

appellants before the Tribunal, we modify the award, as

stated below in the table:-

- 10 -

15. The modified table is as under:

Award amount Sl.

              Particulars                     (in Rupees)
No.
                                         Tribunal    This Court
01    Loss of dependency                 19,27,800    29,98,800
      [14,000+5600=19600x12x17
      x1/4 =29,98,800/-]
02    Medical expenditure till death     12,58,300    12,58,300
03    Loss of Consortium                    40,000     1,60,000
      [40000x4]
04    Loss of Estate                        15,000       15,000
05    Funeral Expenses                      15,000       15,000
      TOTAL                              32,56,100   44,47,100

Therefore, we have enhanced the compensation as per the

chart stated above. The enhanced compensation has to be

divided as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal.

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7005/2021

16. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company

challenged the impugned award passed by the Tribunal,

stating that the Tribunal committed an error in holding

that the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider on the

motorcycle.

17. It is further stated that, the deceased himself was riding

the motorcycle as per Ex.R1 - MNC report. The

motorcycle got skidded. The rider had fallen from the

- 11 -

motorcycle and he had sustained injuries. The self-

accident of the rider has been wrongly converted into that

of a pillion rider, which is far from the truth. Therefore,

the liability to pay the said amount would not arise.

18. To substantiate the said contention, learned counsel for

the appellant has relied on the following judgments:-

i) Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company Limited1

ii) National Insurance Company Limited v.

Ashalata Bhowmik & Others2

iii) The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Jyothi & Others3

iv) National Insurance Company Limited v.

Balakrishnan & Another4

v) New India Assurance Company Limited v.

Asha Rani & Others5

19. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants justified

the award passed by the Tribunal in respect of the

liability. However, he has disputed the quantum

LAWS (SC) 2009 5 218

AIR 2018 SC 4133

MFA 2306/2023 dated 18.03.2025

2013 ACJ 199

2003 ACJ 1

- 12 -

awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the loss of

dependency and consortium.

20. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties

and on perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal

insofar as the liability of the appellant is concerned, it is

an undisputed fact that the names of the rider and pillion

rider are one and the same. A complaint came to be

registered by the complainant stating that the rider and

pillion rider were proceeding on the motorcycle, and the

rider of the motorcycle had made the motorcycle to

jump on the road hump, due to his negligence.

Consequently, the pillion rider fell down on the road and

had sustained injuries. It is an admitted fact that a

mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P2 which indicates that

there was a road hump at the place where the accident

had occurred.

21. It is needless to state that, the Motor Vehicles Act is a

beneficial legislation. It is made and enacted for the

purpose of awarding the compensation to sufferers who

suffered injuries and also death of the family members

in a road accident. When the eyewitnesses have stated

- 13 -

that the rider and the pillion rider were proceeding on

the motorcycle, and both persons are named as

Manjunatha, the liability certainly would be fixed on the

Insurance Company. Hence, the appeal filed by the

Insurance Company challenging the liability and the

quantum needs to be dismissed.

22. In the light of the observations made above, we proceed

to pass the following:-

ORDER

i) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2185/2023 filed by

the appellants/claimants is allowed-in-part.

ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal

in M.V.C. No.2459/2019 dated 28.10.2021 is

modified. The claimants are entitled for a total

compensation of Rs.44,47,100/- (Rupees Forty

Four Lakh Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred

only) as against Rs.32,56,100/- awarded by the

Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum on the enhanced compensation of

Rs.11,91,000/- from the date of filing of the

claim petition till the date of its realization.

- 14 -

iii) The Insurance Company / respondent No.2 in

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2185/2023 is

directed to deposit the enhanced compensation

amount together with interest within six weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

iv) Apportionment, disbursement and deposit of the

enhanced compensation shall be made in terms

of the award of the Tribunal.

v) Draw the modified award accordingly.

vi) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7005/2021 filed by