The Manager Vs Farzana Begaum

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:34674 MFA No. 2988 of 2019

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2988/2019 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE MANAGER, M/S.HDFC-ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, MYSORE TRADE CENTRE, OPP.KSRTC BUS STAND, B.N. ROAD, MYSORE-1, THE REGIONAL OFFICE, #25/1, 2^ND FLOOR, SHANKAR NARAYAN BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. (BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka

¶12

FARZANA BEGAUM, W/O RAFFIQ AHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶13

RAFFIQ AHAMMED, S/O LATE ABDUL SUBAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶14

JARIMA, D/O RAFFIQ AHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34674 MFA No. 2988 of 2019

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SANIYA, D/O RAFFIQ AHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

¶18

ALL ARE R/AT GALIPURA, CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN & TALUK, PRESENTLY: C/O SYED AHAMMED, KAMAGERE VILLEGE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440.

¶19

JAMEER KHAN, S/O AMMER, MAJOR, R/AT GALIPURA EXTENSION, CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 440.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.M. SANATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, R5 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.437/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,98,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

3 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:34674 MFA No. 2988 of 2019

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed against the judgment and award of the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kollegala, in MVC No.437 of 2017 dated 16.01.2019.

¶28

The facts of the case is that one Mufasil Ahamed met with an accident on 26.10.2017 and died. His parents and sisters filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.32,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted Rs.17,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit.

¶29

Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal mainly contending that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-09-C-2916 and it was only due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-53-U-1667. But, the police filed charge sheet against the

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:34674 MFA No. 2988 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

driver of the lorry and the complainant is not an eyewitness to the incident.

¶34

It is further contended by the insurance company that as per Ex.P.3-spot mahazar, the lorry was going on the left side of the road and the accident has taken place 7 feet away from the left side of the road which clearly shows that the deceased himself came to the right side of the road and dashed against the lorry. It is also contended that as per Ex.P.4-IMV report, there is no damage caused to the lorry and front wheel mudguard broken right side crash guard, this clearly show the accident was due to the total negligence on the part of the deceased himself.

¶35

It is further contended that the deceased was unmarried, aged 22 years, working as a mechanic. It was stated that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The compensation is excessively granted. His income was taken as Rs.16,000/- per month without any basis. So also the amount granted under the heads consortium and conventional heads are excessive. Therefore, requested for reduction in the compensation.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34674 MFA No. 2988 of 2019

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has contended that the deceased Mufasil Ahmad was proceeding on his motorbike in a slow and cautious manner. When he reached HP Petrol Bank, a lorry bearing No.KA-09-C-2916, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorbike. As a result, the deceased fell down along with the bike and sustained grievous injuries to the head and chest. Immediately, he was shifted to the hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners-claimants filed Exhibits P.1 to P.6 to substantiate their version and also examined P.W.2-eye witness to the occurrence. The charge sheet is filed against the driver of the lorry. But the said charge sheet is not challenged by the insurance company and immediately after the accident, the driver has not given any complaint.

¶39

Heard the arguments of both sides.

¶40

The deceased was aged 22 years, working as a mechanic. It is argued by the learned counsel for the claimants that the defence of contributory negligence was not taken by the insurance company before the Tribunal and now, they have

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34674 MFA No. 2988 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

come up with this contention for the first time before this Court. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence of the driver of the lorry and it holds good.

¶44

Though it was stated that the deceased was earning Rs.16,000/- to Rs.17,000/- per month, but, the claimants have

¶45

not adduced any evidence to prove the income. As the deceased met with an accident on 26.10.2017, as per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, this Court finds it reasonable to take the national income of the deceased as Rs.11,000/- per month. It was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, during the pendency of the petition, that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were married sisters and as such, they are not entitled for any compensation. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried. As such, half of the amount is to be deducted towards his personal expenses and as he was self employed, 40% is to be added towards future prospects as per the citation National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi¹ . So, the

¶46

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:34674 MFA No. 2988 of 2019

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

total loss of dependency comes to Rs.16,63,200/(11,000+40%-1/2x12x18).

¶50

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents of the deceased.

¶51

They lost their son at the age of 22 years. Therefore, as per the dictum in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others² , and in the authority between United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others³ they are entitled for Rs.40,000/each under the head of filial consortium. They are also entitled for Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads.

¶52

Thus, the total compensation comes to

¶53

Rs.17,73,200/-, which is tabulated as below:

¶54

Heads	Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of Dependency	16,63,200/-
2. Loss of consortium	80,000/-
3. Conventional heads	30,000/-
Total	17,73,200/-

¶55

2 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶56

3 (2020) 9 SCC 644

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:34674 MFA No. 2988 of 2019

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

In all, the claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.17,73,200/- as against the compensation of Rs.17,98,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶60

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶61

(i) Appeal is allowed.

¶62

(ii) The claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.17,73,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶63

(iv) The appellant-Insurance company is directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶64