Partly allowed

The Legal Manager v. Vaishali Hiren Parmar

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2026MFA/3394/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer appealed a road-death compensation award disputing vehicle involvement, liability and quantum; claimants sought enhancement. The court upheld the finding on involvement based on eyewitness evidence, reduced future prospects to 25%, enhanced conventional heads by 10% every three years, and modified total compensation to Rs.1,51,92,164/-.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs.1,69,70,401 to Rs.1,51,92,164 with interest and apportionment unaltered; insurer to indemnify owner's liability; MFA CROB disposed.

The Legal Manager Vs Vaishali Hiren Parmar — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 3394 OF 2024 (MV-D)

¶10

C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION No. 32 OF 2025

¶11

IN MFA No.3394/2024

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

THE LEGAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., No.89, 2^ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, MADIVALA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068. Digitally NOW REP. BY ITS signed by THE LEGAL MANAGER, VINUTHA B S ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., Location: HIGH COURT #121, THE ESTATE BUILDING, OF 9^TH FLOOR, DICKSON ROAD, KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

...APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

VAISHALI HIREN PARMAR W/O LATE HIREN MADHUSUDAN PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ANJANA HIREN PARMAR, D/O LATE HIREN MADHUSUDAN PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,

¶21

MAAHI HIREN PARMAR D/O LATE HIREN MADHUSUDAN PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,

¶22

SINCE 2^ND AND 3^RD RESPONDENT ARE MINOR, WILL BE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER i.e., 1^ST RESPONDENT - VAISHALI HIREN PARMAR.

¶23

SMT. ARUNA MADUSUDAN PARMAR W/O LATE MADHUSUDAN PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶24

ALL ARE R/AT No.17, BHAJI CHAWL CARTER ROAD, 3, OPP. AMBAJI MANDIR, BORIVALI EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400066.

¶25

GURUNATH K.G. S/O GANGANAGOWDA KALIMANE, NO.80, DEEPANJALI, 3^RD MAIN, 4^TH A CROSS, SOMASHEKARA MAGAR, GKVK POST, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064. ALSO R/AT NO.64, VISHNURPRIYA, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, SHRI JAYASHANTHALINGESHWARA LAYOUT, THIMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-561203.

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI BHAT ANANTA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R-2 & R-3 MINOR REP. BY R1 V/O DATED 10.09.2025 NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT R5 - GURUNATH K.G.)

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.01.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.5736/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH-13), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,69,70,401/WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.

¶32

IN MFA.CROB.No.32/2025

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

VAISHALI HIREN PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶35

W/O LATE HIREN MADHUSUDAN PARMAR,

¶36

ANJANA HIREN PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, D/O LATE HIREN MADHUSUDAN PARMAR, A MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER, 1^ST CROSS-OBJECTOR.

¶37

MAAHI HIREN PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, D/O LATE HIREN MADHUSUDAN PARMAR, A MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER, 1^ST CROSS-OBJECTOR.

¶38

SMT. ARUNA MADHUSUDAN PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O LATE MADHUSUDAN PARMAR

¶39

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: NO.17, BHAJI CHAWL, CARTER ROAD 3, OPP: AMBAJI MANDIR,

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

BORIVALI EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA-400 066.

¶43

…CROSS OBJECTORS

¶44

(BY SRI BHAT ANANTA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶45

AND:

¶46

GURUNATH K. G., MAJOR BY AGE, S/O GANGANAGOWDA KALIMANE, No.80, DEEPANJALI, 3^RD MAIN, 4^TH 'A' CROSS, SOMASHEKARA MAGAR, GKVK POST, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064. ALSO RESIDING AT: No.64, VISHNUPRIYA, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, SHRI JAYASHANTHALINGESHWARA LAYOUT, THIMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-561 203. (RC OWNER OF THE MARUTHI SWIFT DESIRE CAR BEARING NO. KA-50-Z-0230) 2. ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INS. CO. LTD., NO.89, 2^ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, MADIVALA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 068, BY THE LEGAL MANAGER NOW REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., NO.121, THE ESTATE BUILDING, 9^TH FLOOR, DICKSON ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. (POLICY NO.3001/224746176/00/000 VALID FROM 24-08-2021 TO 23-08-2022)

¶47

…RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 08.09.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 R/W SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.01.2024 PASSED IN MVC.No.5736/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH.13), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶52

THIS MFA AND MFA Crob. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶53

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶54

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶55

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

¶56

Heard Sri B. Pradeep, learned counsel for the appellant,

¶57

who is respondent No.2 in the Cross-objection; and Sri Bhat Ananta Krishna, learned counsel respondent Nos.1 to 4, the Cross-objectors in the Cross-objection.

¶58

The appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 23.01.2024 passed in MVC No.5736/2021 by the II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court of Small causes, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH.13)¹ , disputing the involvement of the offending vehicle, its liability, and the

¶59

1 Tribunal

¶60

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

quantum of compensation. The cross-objection is filed by the claimants.

¶63

For brevity, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶64

The petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988² , seeking compensation for the death of Sri Hiren Madhusudan. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children, and petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased. The averments in the claim petition are that on 14.11.2021 at about 2.45 p.m., while the deceased was seated on his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-43-W3819, which was parked on the extreme left side of the Bengaluru–Bellary Road in front of Decathlon, near Chikkajala, Bengaluru, the driver of the car bearing registration No. KA-50Z-0230³ , drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous head injuries.

¶65

2 Act

¶66

3 Offending vehicle

¶67

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

4.1 The deceased was initially taken to Life Care Hospital, where first aid was administered, and thereafter shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru, where he was treated as an inpatient. However, he succumbed to the injuries on 24.11.2021. It is further stated that the deceased was taken to Mumbai in an ambulance and that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was incurred towards his last rites. It is pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.1,10,000/- per month and that hospital expenses to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- were incurred.

¶70

4.2 After service of notice, respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle, denied the manner of the accident and the negligence attributed to the driver, and contended that the deceased himself was negligent. It was further asserted that the cause of death was on account of the deceased not wearing a helmet. It is contended that the deceased came from behind the car, suddenly applied brake, fell down, and sustained injuries. Respondent No.1 admitted that the offending vehicle was covered under a valid insurance policy and that its driver possessed a valid driving licence.

¶71

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

4.3 Respondent No.2–insurer, while admitting that the offending vehicle was covered under a valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident, denied its liability. It is contended that the police failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act and disputed the involvement of the offending vehicle. It is specifically contended that the case is one of hit and run and that the complaint was lodged after a delay of three days by falsely implicating the offending vehicle in order to claim compensation.

¶74

4.4 It is further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle without wearing a helmet. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. Apart from these denials, the insurer has also denied the age, avocation, and income of the deceased and contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant.

¶75

4.5 In support of the petitioners’ case, petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1. PW.2, the eyewitness and

¶76

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

complainant, PW.3, the Senior Accountant of the employer of the deceased, PW.4, the Medical Records In-charge of Life Care Multispeciality Hospital, PW.5, the Medical Records Officer of Manipal Hospital, and PW.6, the Investigating Officer, were examined, and documents at Exs.P1 to P46 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1, the Chief Medical Officer of Life Care Hospital, RW.2, the Legal Officer of the Insurance Company, and RW.3, the Forensic Expert, were examined, and documents at Exs.R1 to R3 were marked.

¶79

4.6. The Tribunal framed the following issues;

¶80

"( 1) Whether the Petitioners prove that the death of Hiren Madhusudan Parmar S/o Madhusudan Parmar was only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Maruthi Swift Dezire car bearing No.KA-50-Z-0230 on 14-11-2021, about 2.45 p.m. on Bengaluru-Bellary Road, NH-7, in front of Decathlon, Near Chikkajala, Bengaluru?

¶81

(2) What compensation petitioners are entitled?

¶82

(3) What order?"

¶83

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

4.7 The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record,

¶86

held that the death of the deceased was the result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal further held that respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,69,70,401/-.

¶87

4.8. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal assessed

¶88

the annual income of the deceased at Rs.10,62,066/-, applied multiplier of ‘15’ considering that the deceased was aged between 35 and 40 years, awarded 40% of the assessed income towards 'future prospects', and deducted one-fourth towards 'personal and living expenses'. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,67,27,540/- was awarded towards 'loss of dependency'. In addition thereto, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,60,000/- towards 'consortium', Rs.20,000/- towards 'loss of estate', Rs.15,000/towards 'funeral expenses', and directed reimbursement of 'medical expenses' amounting to Rs.47,861/-.

¶89

Sri B. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, submits that the offending/insured vehicle was not involved in the accident. It is submitted that though the accident is stated to have occurred on 14.11.2021, the complaint was

¶90

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

lodged only on 17.11.2021, after a delay of three days. It is further submitted that the vehicle number mentioned in the MLC has been corrected, which, according to the learned counsel, indicates false implication of the insured vehicle in order to claim insurance compensation.

¶93

5.1 Learned counsel submits that, in cases of hit and run, an insured vehicle is often falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the evidence of PWs.2 and 6 raises serious doubt regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle. It is contended that the testimony of PW.2 is inconsistent in explaining the manner of the accident. It is also submitted that PW.2 has voluntarily appeared to support the case of the petitioners and is an interested witness. Learned counsel further submits that Ex.P42–Medico-Legal Case (MLC) reflects correction of the vehicle number.

¶94

5.2 Learned counsel further submits that PW.6, the Investigating Officer of Chikkajala Police Station, has deposed that the accident occurred on 14.11.2021 and that the police visited the hospital on the very same day. It is submitted that no

¶95

12 -

¶96

NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

complaint was lodged by the colleagues of the deceased even on

¶99

the following day when they visited him in the hospital.

¶100

5.3 Learned counsel further contends that when the

¶101

manner of the accident is tested and compared with the damages assessed in Ex.P10 - the IMV report, the very occurrence of the accident as alleged becomes doubtful. It is submitted that the place of accident is surrounded by establishments such as a PUMA showroom and other shops where CCTV cameras are installed; however, no effort was made to verify or collect CCTV footage.

¶102

5.4 It is further submitted that the accused is a resident

¶103

of Shivamogga and that the registered owner himself produced the offending vehicle before the police, whereupon the vehicle was released on the very same day without any further proceedings. Learned counsel submits that RW.3, the Forensic Expert, examined the footage, explained the manner of the alleged accident, and opined that the occurrence of the accident was doubtful. It is contended that the evidence of the Forensic Expert has not been considered by the Tribunal.

¶104

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

5.5 Learned counsel submits that the deceased was aged 40 years, 4 months, and 24 days, and that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding 40% towards 'future prospects' instead of 25%. It is further submitted that the applicable multiplier is ‘14’ and not ‘15’ as applied by the Tribunal.

¶107

5.6 Learned counsel further contends that the income reflected in the salary slips includes reimbursement amounts towards certain materials purchased by the deceased in his capacity as a Purchase Manager, and to that extent, appropriate deductions are required while determining the actual income of the deceased.

¶108

Per contra , Sri Bhat Ananta Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, submits that the evidence on record clearly establishes the involvement of the offending vehicle and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. It is submitted that the deceased had sustained serious injuries and that the delay in lodging the complaint was on account of the circumstances arising out of the accident.

¶109

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

6.1 Learned counsel further submits that the occurrence of the accident, the injuries sustained, and the death of the deceased due to accidental injuries is not in dispute. It is contended that any alleged deficiency or lapse in the investigation conducted by the Police cannot be a ground to conclude that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. It is further submitted that respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle, himself produced the vehicle before the police and has not disputed its involvement.

¶112

6.2 Learned counsel submits that the evidence of RW.3, the Forensic Expert, is purely hypothetical and cannot be accepted in the face of other corroborative evidence on record establishing the involvement of the offending vehicle and the occurrence of the accident. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing liability on the owner of the vehicle and in directing respondent No.2, the insurer, to indemnify the same.

¶113

6.3 Learned counsel further submits that as on the date of the accident, the deceased had not completed 40 years of age and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding 40% of the

¶114

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

assessed income towards future prospects. It is further submitted that the applicable multiplier has been rightly taken as ‘15’ by the Tribunal. With these submissions, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal preferred by the insurer.

¶117

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers.

¶118

The accident occurred on 14.11.2021 at about 2.45 p.m., and the deceased was shifted to Life Care Multi Specialty Hospital. On the very same day, the police were intimated. However, the complaint came to be registered on 17.11.2021 by a third party. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that there is a delay of three days in lodging the complaint and that the initial Police intimation records the incident as a pedestrian being hit by a car, which was subsequently altered to a bike rider being hit by a car. It is contended that, in view of these aspects, the involvement of the offending vehicle itself is doubtful. However, Ex.P3, the Police intimation, cannot be construed as altering the entire nature of the case. The change of description from “pedestrian” to “bike rider” is of no material consequence, as the consistent case is that the accident occurred when the deceased

¶119

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

was on the roadside, either standing near or seated on the parked motorcycle. When the initial intimation is given by a third party, a possible error in description cannot be ruled out. Such a variation does not affect the core allegation that the offending car struck the deceased while he was on the roadside.

¶122

8.1 The complaint was lodged on 17.11.2021 by PW.2, who is an eyewitness to the accident. The deceased had suffered severe head injuries and was undergoing treatment in the Intensive Care Unit. Petitioner No.1, the wife of the deceased, has two minor children and was attending to the deceased in the hospital during the said period. The accident occurred within the jurisdiction of a police station different from that of the hospital, and in such circumstances, it would be unreasonable to expect the wife of the deceased to immediately attend to legal formalities when her husband was struggling for survival. Expecting the complaint to be registered on the very same day in such a situation is wholly unrealistic. Further, when the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle are established by other corroborative evidence on record, the mere delay in lodging the complaint cannot be

¶123

17 -

¶124

NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

treated as a valid defence to deny liability on the part of the insurer.

¶127

8.2 PW.2, the eyewitness and complainant, has

¶128

categorically deposed that the deceased was seated on his parked motorcycle on the extreme left side of the road when the offending vehicle dashed against the motorcycle from behind. It is further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle fled from the spot immediately after the accident. PW.2 deposed that the deceased was first taken to Life Care Multi Specialty Hospital and was thereafter referred to Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru. According to PW.2, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶129

8.3 PW.2 was subjected to extensive cross-examination, during which suggestions were made to discredit his presence at the scene of the accident. However, no material was elicited to disprove his presence at the scene, nor was any contrary version brought on record. No suggestions were put to PW.2 with regard to the complaint at Ex.P2. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurer, when viewed in the overall appreciation of the evidence, only reinforce the

¶130

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

conclusion that PW.2 was an eyewitness to the accident and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

¶133

8.4 RW.3, the Forensic Expert, in the course of crossexamination, admitted that he was instructed by the insurer to ascertain the facts of the accident and to prepare the Motor Accident Reconstruction Report. It is further admitted by RW.3 that he had not visited the scene of the accident and that the report was prepared solely on the basis of documents such as the FIR, spot mahazar, charge sheet, spot sketch, IMV report, and medical records relating to the deceased.

¶134

8.5 RW.3 has also admitted that he cannot read or write Kannada, whereas the documents relied upon by him are in Kannada. The translated copies allegedly referred to by RW.3 have not been produced before the Court. It is further admitted that RW.3 had not even examined the photographs of the accident scene or the damaged vehicles while preparing the report. The witness has also admitted that he was unsure as to whether the deceased was seated on the motorcycle or standing beside it at the time of the accident.

¶135

19 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

8.6 Based on the presumptive assessment made by RW.3, the insurer contends that the offending/insured vehicle was not involved in the accident. However, having regard to the aforesaid admissions, it is difficult to accept the evidence of RW.3. The accident reconstruction report has been prepared at the instance of the insurer, without inspection of the accident spot, and on the basis of documents in a language not known to the expert, thereby rendering the opinion unreliable. The IMV report establishes that both the vehicle of the deceased and the offending car sustained damage, thereby indicating the involvement of both vehicles in the accident. In the absence of a contemporaneous sketch depicting the exact position of the vehicles, it would be difficult to conclude that the damages to both vehicles were not the result of the alleged accident.

¶138

8.7 According to PW.2, immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to the hospital by members of the public and the offending car fled from the scene. In such circumstances, the possibility of the position of the two-wheeler having been altered cannot be ruled out. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence of PWs.1, 2, and 6, as well as the

¶139

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

evidence of RW.3, has held that the accident occurred due to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident involving the offending car. The Tribunal further held that the involvement of the offending vehicle was not disputed by its owner.

¶142

8.8 When the owner of the vehicle has not disputed the involvement of the offending vehicle and in the absence of any cogent contrary evidence, the contention of the insurer cannot be accepted. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on duly proved evidence, and we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the said finding on this issue.

¶143

Learned counsel for the insurer contends that the monthly income considered on the basis of the pay slips at Ex.P35 includes reimbursement of expenses incurred by the deceased and that such amounts ought to have been excluded. PW.3 was examined on behalf of the employer, and he has categorically denied this suggestion.

¶144

9.1 The evidence of PW.3 only indicates that the

¶145

deceased, being in the marketing division, was purchasing certain materials and claiming reimbursement. However, this by

¶146

21 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶147

HC-KAR

¶148

itself does not establish that such reimbursement was reflected as “special allowances” in the pay slips. On a perusal of the pay slips, it is evident that the payments under the various heads mentioned therein were consistently made. We find that such payments are permanent in nature.

¶149

9.2 Since the amounts reflected in the pay slips appear throughout the relevant period, we hold that the amounts mentioned therein constitute permanent income and are liable to be taken into account for computing the monthly income of the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal in assessing the monthly income is based on the evidence on record and the duly proved pay slips. We find no error warranting interference with the order of the Tribunal on this aspect.

¶150

Learned counsel for the insurer submits that the date

¶151

of birth of the deceased is 21.06.1981 and the date of death is 24.11.2021. It is submitted that, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 40 years, 4 months, and 24 days. It is contended that when the deceased falls within the age group of 40 to 50 years, only 25% is required to be added towards future

¶152

22 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶153

HC-KAR

¶154

prospects and that the Tribunal committed an error in adding 40% towards future prospects.

¶155

10.1 In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

¶156

Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi⁴ , where the deceased is aged between 30 and 40 years, 40% is to be added towards future prospects, whereas for the age group of 40 to 50 years, the addition is restricted to 25%. In the present case, it is evident that the deceased had completed 40 years of age, and therefore, the applicable age group is 40 to 50 years, warranting addition of 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal, insofar as it relates to the percentage of future prospects, is modified by reducing the same from 40% to 25%.

¶157

10.2 Insofar as the other heads of compensation are concerned, we note that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium, a sum of Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead body, funeral & obsequies expenses, with

¶158

4 2017 (16) SCC 680

¶159

23 -

¶160

NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶161

HC-KAR

¶162

an increase of 10% every three years from the date of the accident. Though the Tribunal awarded compensation under the conventional heads, it committed an error in not granting the increase of 10%. Accordingly, the amount awarded towards the above mentioned heads is enhanced by 10% every three years from the date of the accident.

¶163

The compensation awarded under the head of medical expenses is based on evidence on record, and we are not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶164

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under;

¶165

Sl. No.	Heads of compensation	Compensation awarded in Rs.	Compensation modified In Rs.
1	Loss of dependency	1,67,27,540/-	1,49,35,303/-
2	Loss of consortium	1,60,000/-	1,76,000/-
3	Loss to estate	20,000/-	16,500/-
4	Transportation of dead body, Funeral & obsequies Expenses	15,000/-	16,500/-
5	Medical expenses	47,861/-	47,861/-
	TOTAL	1,69,70,401/-	1,51,92,164/-
	Reduced compensation	17,67,	237/-

¶166

24 - NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶167

HC-KAR

¶168

The claimants have preferred cross-objections

¶169

contending that the Tribunal failed to record that the owner of the offending vehicle is primarily liable to pay the compensation and that the insurer is required to indemnify such liability. It is submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in directing respondent No.2–insurer to deposit the compensation amount without expressly recording the liability of the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶170

We are of the view that even if such a submission is accepted as pointing out a minor omission, it does not alter either the outcome of the proceedings or the determination of liability. Consideration of such an issue would be hyper-technical and unnecessary. However, it is clarified that the direction issued to the insurer to deposit the compensation amount is to be understood as one requiring the insurer to indemnify the liability of the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶171

Accordingly, the following order;

¶172

(i) MFA No.3394/2024 is allowed-in-part.

¶173

(ii) The claimants are entitle to a compensation of Rs.1,51,92,164/- as against Rs.1,69,70,401/as was ordered by the Tribunal.

¶174

25 -

¶175

NC: 2026:KHC:3223-DB MFA No. 3394 of 2024 C/W MFA.CROB No. 32 of 2025

¶176

HC-KAR

¶177

(iii) The rate of interest remains unaltered.

¶178

(iv) The investment and apportionment ordered by the Tribunal remains unaltered.

¶179

(v) The Tribunal shall deposit the award amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

¶180

(vi) In light of the observations made above, MFA CROB. No.32/2025 stands disposed of .

¶181

(vii) No order as to costs.

¶182

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶183

Sd/-

¶184

(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶185

¶186

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17

The Legal Manager v. Vaishali Hiren Parmar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Legal Manager v. Vaishali Hiren Parmar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Shuhabuddin Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Lingaraju Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Dr. Deepika G Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Vs M/S Apkon Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

The Income Tax Officer Vs Begur Sinappa Venkatesh

M/S. the Karnataka Chemists and Druggists Association (R) Vs the Income Tax Officer