Smt. Nandini H Vs Shri.C.P.Sundar Raj

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8322 OF 2017 (MV-D), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8323 OF 2017 (MV-D), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1744 OF 2021 (MV-D),

¶12

IN MFA No. 7214/2017

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. NANDINI H., W/O LATE NARASIMHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT #96, GUNDMAGERE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-561203.

¶16

&APPELLANT

¶17

(BY SRI. Y.K.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SHRI.C.P.SUNDAR RAJ, M/S SHABAREES AGENCIES, #6, GOCS BUIDLING, SHIVAMOGGA, BALRAJ URS ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201. (RC OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG. NO. KA-14-A-8364)

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, #105-A TO 107-A, FIRST FLOOR, CEARS PLAZA, #136, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025.

¶24

(POLICY NO.OG-14-1710-1803-00000084 VALID FROM 21-07-2013 TO 20-07-2014)

¶25

SRI. SIDDARAJU, S/O CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH, SINCE DEAD (AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 20.03.2025, ON 21.08.2025, LR'S OF R3 ARE R4 TO R6)

¶26

SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O SRI SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶27

SMT. NANDINI S., D/O SRI SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶28

SRI. MARTHESHA @ LOKESHA, S/O SRI SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶29

R4 TO R6 ARE R/AT GUNDMAGERE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-561203.

¶30

&RESPONDENTS

¶31

(R1-SERVED; SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. JAGADISH G.KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2018 NOTICE TO R5 AND R6 IS DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2025 R4 TO R6 ARE LR'S OF DECEASED R3)

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.59/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶36

IN MFA NO. 8322/2017

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, GOLDEN HEIGHTS, IV FLOOR, 59^TH 'C' CROSS, 4^TH 'M' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR ENTRANCE, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶39

REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT (CLAIMS)

¶40

...APPELLANT

¶41

(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE)

¶42

AND:

¶43

NANDINI H., W/O LATE NARASIMHARAJU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O NO.96, GUNDMAGERE, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203.

¶44

C.P.SUNDAR RAJ, M/S SHABAREES AGENCIES, NO.6, GOCS BUILDING, SHIVAMOGGA, BALRAJ URS ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. (RC OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA 14 A 8364)

¶45

4 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

SIDDARAJU , S/O CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶49

JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶50

NANDINI P., D/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶51

MARTHESHA @ LOKESHA, S/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶52

R3 TO R6 ARE R/O GUNDAMATERE, SASLU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561203.

¶53

...RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI. Y.K.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶55

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.59/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 4^TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & MACT MEMBER, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,93,000/WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

¶56

IN MFA NO. 8323/2017

¶57

BETWEEN:

¶58

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, GOLDEN HEIGHTS,

¶59

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

IV FLOOR, 59^TH 'C' CROSS, 4^TH 'M' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR ENTRANCE, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶62

REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT (CLAIMS)

¶63

...APPELLANT

¶64

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶65

AND:

¶66

SIDDARAJU , S/O CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR'S R2 TO R4

¶67

JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶68

NANDINI S., D/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶69

MARTHESHA @ LOKESHA, S/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶70

R2 TO R4 ARE R/O GUNDAMATERE, SASLU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561203.

¶71

C.P.SUNDAR RAJ, M/S SHABAREES AGENCIES, NO.6, GOCS BUILDING, SHIVAMOGGA, BALRAJ URS ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. (RC OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. KA 14 A 8364)

¶72

...RESPONDENTS

¶73

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

(BY SRI. JAGADISH G.KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; R5 - SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2025 R2 TO R4 ARE THE LR'S OF DECEASED R1)

¶76

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.76/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & MACT MEMBER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DODDABALLAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,93,000/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶77

IN MFA NO. 1744/2021

¶78

BETWEEN:

¶79

SRI SIDDARAJU S/O CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR'S A2 TO A4 (AMENDED CAUSE TITLE AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 20.03.2025)

¶80

JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶81

MARTHESHA @ LOKESHA, S/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶82

KUMARI NANDINI S., D/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶83

A2 TO A4 ARE R/O GUNDAMATERE, SASLU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561203.

¶84

&APPELLANTS

¶85

(BY SRI JAGADISH G.KUMBAR, ADVOCATE

¶86

7 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2025, A2 TO A4 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF A1)

¶90

AND:

¶91

SRI C.P.SUNDAR RAJ, M/S SHABAREES AGENCIES, NO.6, GOCS BUILDING, SHIVAMOGGA, BALRAJ URS ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. (RC OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA 14 A 8364)

¶92

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL, GOLDEN HEIGHTS, NO.1/2, IV FLOOR, 59^TH 'C' CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR,BENGALURU-560 010.

¶93

REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER/ ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT

¶94

...RESPONDENTS

¶95

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH.)

¶96

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO. 76/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶97

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶98

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶99

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶102

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

¶103

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶104

These appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award dated 03.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.59/2014 and MVC.No.76/2014 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Doddaballapura, Bangalore Rural District (For short, the 'Tribunal').

¶105

MFA.No.7214/2017 and MFA.No.1744/2021 are filed by the claimants i.e., the wife of the deceased and parents, brother and sister of the deceased for enhancement of compensation. Whereas, MFA.No.8322/2017 and MFA.No.8323/2017 are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of negligence and quantum of compensation.

¶106

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶109

The appellant in MFA.No.7214/2017 is the wife of Sri Narasimharaju (hereinafter referred as the deceased) and the appellants in MFA.No.1744/2021 are the parents, brother and sister of the deceased Narasimharaju. On 16.02.2014 around 12.30 pm, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-EZ-8231, on the extreme edge of Gundamagere Bevinahalli Road, a Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-14-A-8364 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the terrific impact, the Narasimharaju sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, the body was shifted to Government Hospital, Doddaballapura, where postmortem examination was conducted there after claim petitions were filed by claimants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for seeking compensation.

¶110

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

Sri Y.K Sheshagiri Rao and Sri Jagadish G Kumbar, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal has awarded only a meager compensation on all heads.

¶113

As on the date of the accident, the age of the deceased was 26 years and he was working as masoncum-loader and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards 'future prospects'. Hence, they pray to allow the appeals.

¶114

Sri. H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, vehemently contended that the Insurance Company has disputed the involvement of insured vehicle in the accident. Further, the evidence produced by the Insurance Company clearly demonstrates that the insured vehicle was implicated in the accident in collusion with the owner of the vehicle. Further, the owner of the vehicle voluntarily produced the vehicle without any issuance of notice on the very next day of the accident and after such

¶115

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶116

production of the vehicle, the Police had issued notice under Section 133 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, to the owner of the vehicle. The injured vehicle is said to be involved in the accident on the basis of the wooden pieces found at the spot of accident. Further, the act of the owner of the vehicle in producing the vehicle on his own, without any prior notice by the police, would imply that there is collusion between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle. The owner has lent the vehicle to the claimant to claim unjust compensation. The mere production of vehicle by the owner before the police cannot by itself, be treated as proof that vehicle was involved in the accident. The collusion between the insurance and the claimants is evident from their facts. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Further, the complaint and other documents clearly demonstrates that an unknown vehicle dashed against the motorcycle, the manner in which the injured vehicle was

¶117

12 -

¶118

NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

brought into the place of unknown vehicle is unacceptable and contrary to the documents produced by the claimants.

¶121

Further it is submitted that there are three dependants of the deceased namely, the wife and parents. The brother and sister of deceased, are married persons and therefore they cannot be treated as dependants. Hence, 1/3^rd deductions would be considered. Thus, she prays to allow the appeal.

¶122

On perusal of the material available on record, the following points that would arise for our consideration in the appeal are:

¶123

(i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly justified that the offending vehicle in question caused the accident, thus saddling the entire liability on the offending vehicle?

¶124

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

¶125

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶126

Insofar as the accident is concerned, the alleged

¶127

accident occurred on 16.02.2014 and on the same day a complaint was lodged wherein the vehicle number was not mentioned in the permit document. On 19.02.2014 vehicle name was disclosed to the Investigating Officer. However, on perusal of Ex.P3, the statement of one Sri Venkata Ramaniah, it appears that on 17.02.2014, he had disclosed the vehicle name to the investigating officer. This factual aspect has not been clearly disputed by the Insurance Company.

¶128

Further, first information report is not an

¶129

encyclopedia and the first informant did not furnish all the details in the first information report. Since the first informant was not an eye witness to the incident, during the course of investigation, the vehicle registration number was traced by the investigating officer and as recorded in column no. 17 of the charge sheet, the investigating officer made allegations that the vehicle number i.e., the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-14-A-8364

¶130

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶131

caused the accident. Admittedly, the investigation report is not been challenged by the insurance company. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the entire liability on the insurer of the said vehicle.

¶132

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month which on meager side. The accident is of the year 2014 and no documentary evidence is recorded based on income of the deceased in that regard. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the Circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to reassess the income of the deceased at Rs.8,500/- per month.

¶133

The deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of

¶134

accident. The respondent - Insurance Company has not

¶135

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶136

disputed this aspect. Hence, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group of the deceased is '17'.

¶137

The deceased died leaving behind his wife, parents, one brother and a sister. Hence, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4^th towards his personal expenses.

¶138

The Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRANAY SETHI reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that, if the deceased is below 40 years, then 40% of the income of the deceased would be added as future prospects. Since the deceased was self-employed, the loss of dependency is reckoned as under:

¶139

Rs.8,500 + Rs.3,400 (40%) = Rs.11,900/-.

¶140

Rs.11,900 - Rs.2,975 (1/4^th ) = Rs.8,925/-

¶141

Rs.8,925 x 12 x 17 = Rs.18,20,700/-

¶142

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶143

The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding

¶144

fair compensation under conventional heads. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRURAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017(16) SCC 680 , the claimants are entitled towards 8loss of consortium9 at Rs.40,000/each which comes to the total of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards 8loss of estate9 and Rs.15,000/- for

¶145

8funeral expenses9.

¶146

Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:

¶147

HEADS	Rs.
Loss of dependency	18,20,700
Loss of consortium	2,00,000
Funeral expenses	15,000.00
Loss of estate	15,000.00
TOTAL	20,50,700
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	6,93,000
ENHANCED COMPENSATION	13,57,700

¶148

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:35343-DB MFA No. 7214 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8322 of 2017 MFA No. 8323 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER

¶149

HC-KAR

¶150

In the result, we pass the following:

¶151

O R D E R

¶152

i. The appeals filed by the appellant-Insurance Company are dismissed and the appeals filed by the appellants-claimants are allowed-in-part .

¶153

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled for a modified compensation of Rs.20,50,700/- as against Rs.6,93,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization. However, the claimants are not entitled for the interest for a period of 896 days.

¶154

iii. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount together with interest before the Tribunal within a period of

¶155