Allowed

The Branch Manager, v. R. Varshitha

Karnataka HC24 Apr 2026MFA/1921/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenges a motor accident compensation award. The High Court allowed the appeal, modified the compensation amount to Rs.42,01,050, and directed the insurance company to deposit the balance with interest.

What did the court decide?

Modified the judgment and award dated 01.10.2024 to award Rs.42,01,050 as compensation and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the balance within one month bearing 6% interest.

The Branch Manager, Vs R. Varshitha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:23545 MFA No. 1921 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1921 OF 2025 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE BRANCH MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., II FLOOR, SM TOWERS, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011.

¶11

NOW REP BY THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, SOUTHERN PORTION EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

R. VARSHITHA, D/O. S. RAJKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶17

R. KAVYA, D/O. S. RAJKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶18

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.17/1, TULASHITHOTA, I CROSS, NEAR SRINIVASA NURSING HOME, CHIKKAPETE, BENGALURU - 560 053.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:23545 MFA No. 1921 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SIDDAPPA,

¶22

S/O BHAGAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NEAR HULAGAMMA KATTE, VENKATAPURA, KUMBARAPET, SURAPURA TALUK, YADAGIRI DIST (DRIVER OF TIPPER LORRY -EX-PARTE)

¶23

SRI. P. RAMESH, PROPRIETOR MATHRUSRI BUILDERS, NO.250, 5TH MAIN, CANARA BANK COLONY, CHANDRA LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI BANK, BANGALORE - 560 072.

¶24

S.RAJKUMAR @ DIWAKAR T.RAJU, S/O LATE. SIDDAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.17/1, SIDDAPPA BUILDING, TULASITHOTA, PARK ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 053 AND ALSO AT NO.6, 2ND CROSS, THOTA DEVARA GALI, COTTON PET, BENGALURU 560 053.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. JYOTHI S KEMPAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G. S. PRASANNA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; V/O DATED 17.04.2025, NOTICE TO R3 AND R5 D/W; R4 SERVED)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.01.10.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.5717/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACJM, BENGALURU, (SCCH-5), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.29,44,627/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE i.e. 14.12.2022 TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:23545 MFA No. 1921 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

This appeal is filed by the appellant/insurance company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 01.10.2024 passed in MVC No.5717/2018 on the file of the VIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM, MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-5).

¶35

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and learned counsel for the respondents. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶36

Brief facts of the case are that, one K.Padma,

¶37

met with an accident on 13.07.2018. Her daughters filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.29,44,627/-

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:23545 MFA No. 1921 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Being aggrieved by the said order, Insurance Company preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased-K. Padma, as Rs.33,000/- per month, added 25% towards future prospects, deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of '13'. Initially, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.43,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which was later modified to Rs.29,44,627/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The declared income for the academic year 2017–2018 was Rs.3,95,252/-. It is further stated that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the monthly income as Rs.33,000/- as per Ex.P.24, whereas it ought to have considered the average returns of two years for determining compensation under the head loss of dependency. The Tribunal erred in granting 25% towards future prospects and the question of granting interest on the future prospects does not arise, as per the decision in

¶41

MAC App-378/2017, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:23545 MFA No. 1921 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Champbati Ray & Others (Gawahati High Court) .

¶45

Thus, requested for modification of the order.

¶46

It is stated that the deceased/K. Padma, was

¶47

aged 46 years and was working as an Accountant in M/s. Anjanadri Interiors, earning Rs.36,000/- per month. The claimants have filed Ex.P.8-salary slip, Ex.P.26-bank statement and Ex.P.24-income tax return. Considering the said documents, this Court finds it just and reasonable to take her monthly income at Rs.31,385/-. As she was aged 46 years, the relevant multiplier is ‘13’. The claimants are entitled for 25% towards future prospects and 1/3^rd of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.40,80,050/- (31,385 + 25% x 12 x 13 - 1/3). The claimants are entitled to parental consortium of Rs.44,000/- each and a sum of Rs.33,000/- under conventional heads.

¶48

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below:

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:23545 MFA No. 1921 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Towards loss of dependency	40,80,050/-
2	Towards loss of parental	88,000/-
	consortium (Rs.44,000/- each to petitioner Nos.1 and 2)
3	Towards conventional heads	33,000/-
	Total	42,01,050/-

¶52

Hence, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.43,60,000/to

¶53

Rs.42,01,050/-.

¶54

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. The Appeal is allowed .

¶57

ii. The judgment and award dated 01.10.2024 passed in MVC No.5717/2018 on the file of the VIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM, MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-5), is modified.

¶58

iii. Insurance Company has already deposited the 50% of the compensation amount

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:23545 MFA No. 1921 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

before this Court. Therefore, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶62

iv. On such deposit, both petitioners/claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount from this Court equally along with interest accrued on the same.

¶63

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶64

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

The Branch Manager, v. R. Varshitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. R. Varshitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumara Vs Gangadharappa

Sunil H.N. Vs Narasimhamurthy P.H.

Sri K Puneeth @ Sidderaje Urs Vs Smt M N Vidya Urs @ Kempammanni

Smt. Kanchana M C Vs Sri Gajendra M

Sri Ananda Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt. Jayalakshmi M Vs Sri Nagaraj B S