The Legal Manager Vs Ramachandra @ Ramegowda

THE LEGAL MANAGER SHRIRAM GIC LTD NO.5, II FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBER INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU POLICY ISSUED AT SHRIRAM GIC LTD. 10003-E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPURA, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN-302 022 NOW REPRESENTED BY SHRIRAM GIC LTD. NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE BELEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD OFF. B.G. ROAD, LIMB POST BENGALURU-560 076.

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

RAMACHANDRA @ RAMEGOWDA S/O. RANGADHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:37169-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5090 of 2021

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:R2 AND R3.

¶23

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA H.S. W/O. RAMACHANDRA @ RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶24

MOHAN KUMAR M.R. S/O. RAMACHANDRA @ RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶25

RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT 1267, 8TH MAIN 3RD CROSS, BHUWANESHWARI NAGAR DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057.

¶26

MANJU S/O. CHANDRAMMA NO.356, BG PURA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTIRCT-571 417.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI RAGHU R., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 17-9-2025, R-2 AND R-3 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R-1;

¶29

VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 17-9-2025, NOTICE TO R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶30

¶31

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12-3-2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.4373 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.38,79,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶32

IN MFA NO.5090/2021

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA H.S. W/O. RAMACHANDRA @ RAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37169-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5090 of 2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

SRI MOHAN KUMAR M.R. S/O. RAMACHANDRA @ RAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶38

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1267, 8TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057.

¶39

...APPELLANTS

¶40

(BY SRI RAGHU R., ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.5, II FLOOR MONARCH CHAMBER INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶43

MR. MANJU S/O. CHANDRAMMA NO.356, B.G. PURA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 417.

¶44

...RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 17-9-2025, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶46

¶47

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12-3-2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.4373 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶48

4 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:37169-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5090 of 2021

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶52

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶53

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶54

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶55

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶56

As these appeals are arising out of common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶57

This Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4019/2021 is filed by the appellant - Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru and Member, Prl. MACT at Bengaluru (for short, "The Tribunal"), in MVC.No.4373/2019 dated 12.03.2021 on the ground of negligence and not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas MFA.No.5090/2021 is filed by the appellants - claimants

¶58

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37169-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5090 of 2021

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the

¶61

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶62

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.

¶63

The brief facts of the case are that, on 16.09.2018, one Ravikumar (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-52-K-9320 driven by his friend Mahesh from Bengaluru to Thalakadu. At about 6.15 p.m., when they were moving on Javanagahalli

¶64

lake bund, at that time, a Tractor-Trailer bearing registration Nos.KA-11-T-9875 - KA-11-T-9876 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in a high speed so as to endanger human life and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and as a result, they were knocked down from their motorcycle and the wheel of the trailer ran over the thighs of the deceased

¶65

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37169-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5090 of 2021

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Ravikumar. Immediately after the accident, injured Ravikumar was shifted to Malavalli Government Hospital wherein he was administered first aid and then he was shifted to Mandya Government Hospital, upon examination he was declared "brought dead" in the said hospital. Due to his death, parents and his younger brother lost their dependency and this led to registration of FIR and Investigation. Hence, claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on various heads.

¶68

Sri. B.Pradeep, learned counsel for the Insurance

¶69

Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the negligence against the driver of the Tractor-Trailer bearing registration No.KA-11T-9875 - KA.11-T-9876. In fact, the driver of the Tractor-

¶70

Trailer was proceeding on left side, by following traffic rules. However, rider of the motorcycle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Tractor-Trailer, which resulted in accident. The accident has occurred

¶71

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:37169-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5090 of 2021

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

solely on the negligence on the part of the motorcycle.

¶74

Further, the Tribunal committed an error by taking income of the deceased at Rs.24,931/- per month, as deceased was working as a Quality Checker in Promptec Renewable Energy Solutions Pvt., Ltd. In fact, the Company was closed prior to the filing of claim petition. The claimants have examined on oath the author of Ex.P12 - appointment letter, the same was issued on 04.02.2019 and the accident occurred on 16.09.2018. Thus, it appears that Ex.P12 document has been created for the purpose of seeking higher compensation from the Insurance Company. Further, the Tribunal has granted high and exorbitant compensation under the conventional heads, and the same has to be reduced. Thus, he prayed to allow his appeal.

¶75

Sri. Raghu R., learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in not assessing the income of the deceased properly. The deceased was working in a private firm as

¶76

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37169-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5090 of 2021

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

permanent employee and was earning a sum of Rs.25,161/-. However, the Tribunal assessed the salary of the deceased at Rs.24,931/-. Further, the Tribunal has also committed an error in considering the future prospects at 40% instead of 50%. Considering the fact that the deceased was having a permanent job, the Tribunal ought to have added 50% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Further, the compensation granted under the head loss of dependency is on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced. Thus, he prayed to allow his appeal.

¶79

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including the original records of the Tribunal, the following points would arise for our consideration:

¶80

Whether the Tribunal is rightly justified in saddling the entire negligence on the driver of the Tracter-Trailer?

¶81

9 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:37169-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5090 of 2021

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement or reduction?

¶85

Insofar as contributory negligence is concerned, from perusal of Ex.P1 - FIR and complaint, Ex.P2 - Spot mahazar, Ex.P3 - Spot sketch, Ex.P5 - IMV report and Ex.P9 - Charge sheet and oral evidence of PW2 - the rider of the motorcycle and eyewitness to the incident, it is evident that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor-Trailer. As per column-17 of the charge sheet, it clearly establishes that driver of the Tractor-Trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. From perusal of Ex.P3 - Spot sketch, it clearly demonstrates that the TractorTrailer dragged the body of the deceased for 40 - 50 feet ahead from the place of accident. It shows that driver of Tractor-Trailer was negligent in driving the vehicle. If he

¶86

had applied break, he could have avoided the accident and also it appears that the accident occurred in the middle of the road. Hence, the Tribunal considered the oral

¶87

10 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:37169-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5090 of 2021

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

evidence of PW2 - rider of the motorcycle, FIR, complaint, IMV report and Spot sketch and rightly saddled the entire liability on the driver of the Tractor-Trailer. Hence, no interference is required.

¶91

Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the notional income of Rs.24,931/- per month, considering the contents of Ex.P12. We have perused Ex.P12, the same was issued on 04.02.2019 and the accident had occurred on 16.09.2018 and the author of Ex.P12 is examined on oath by the claimants. It appears that Ex.P12 is created document. Thus, claimants have not furnished sufficient proof with regard to income of the deceased.

¶92

The accident is of the year 2018. In the absence of proof of sufficient income of the deceased, taking note of the Circular issued by 'Karnataka State Legal Services Authority' as well as 'High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru', we deem it appropriate to assess

¶93

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:37169-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5090 of 2021

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

the notional income of the deceased at Rs.12,500/- per month. The deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident. The Insurance Company has not disputed this aspect. Thus, the multiplier applicable to the

¶96

age of the deceased is '18'. The deceased died leaving behind his father, mother and younger brother and he was batchelor and therefore, appropriate deduction towards personal expenses is 50%. Admittedly, the Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , has rightly considered the addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, since the deceased was self employed. Thus, the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' is re-assessed as under:

¶97

12,500 + 40% = 17,500 x 50% = 8,750 x 12 x 18 =

¶98

18,90,000/-

¶99

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:37169-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5090 of 2021

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

The Tribunal has committed an error by

¶102

awarding meagre compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance

¶103

Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Pranay Sethi's case referred Supra , the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/each, which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3) under the head ‘ loss of consortium ’.

¶104

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards ‘ loss of estate ’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘ funeral and transportation expenses ’, which is fair and reasonable.

¶105

Thus, in all claimants are entitled for modified compensation as under:

¶106

	HEADS	Amount (in Rs.)
1	Loss of dependency	18,90,000.00
2	Loss of estate	15,000.00
3	Loss of Consortium	1,20,000.00
4	Funeral and transportation expenses	15,000.00
	Total	20,40,000.00

¶107

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:37169-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5090 of 2021

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

Compensation awarded byTribunal	38,79,500.00
- Reduced Compensation	18,39,500.00

¶110

Hence, the claimants are entitled for reduced compensation of Rs.20,40,000/-, as against the

¶111

compensation awarded by the Tribunal at 38,79,500/-.

¶112

In the result, we pass the following:

¶113

ORDER

¶114

i. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4019 of 2021 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed-in-part .

¶115

ii. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5090 of 2021 filed by the appellants - claimants is allowed-in-part.

¶116

iii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled for reduced compensation of Rs .20,40,000/- as against Rs.38,79,500/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of its realisation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs.18,39,500/-

¶117

14 -

¶118

NC: 2025:KHC:37169-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 5090 of 2021

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

iv. The Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount together with interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶121