Partly allowed

The Legal Manager Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. v. Kempanna

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2026MFA/7124/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka modified a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal award against an insurer. The court raised contributory negligence from 10% to 20% and corrected the personal expenses deduction from one-third to 50% due to the deceased being a bachelor, reducing total compensation from Rs. 27.75 lakhs to Rs. 21.32 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reassessed at Rs. 21,32,000/- to be paid by the insurer at 80% share with 6% interest.

The Legal Manager Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. Vs Kempanna — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19007-DB MFA No. 7124 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7124 OF 2021(MV-D)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE LEGAL MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., NO 121 THE ESTATE BUILDING 9^TH FLOOR DICKENSON ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶12

NOTE:M.S ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE CO.LTD., AND M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BOTH ARE SAME COMPANY

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

KEMPANNA,

¶18

S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶19

AKKAYYAMMA, W/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶20

BOTH ARE R/AT AGASARAHALLI, TAVAREKERE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 133.

¶21

PYAREJAN, S/O DAROD SAB, BYLANARASAPURA VILLAGE,

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:19007-DB MFA No. 7124 of 2021

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

HOSKOTE TALUK,

¶26

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, R3 IS SERVED)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.3669/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.25,00,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶32

and

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M NADAF)

¶36

This appeal is by the Insurer calling in question the contributory negligence as well as quantum of

¶37

compensation, arising out of the Judgment and award dated 23.09.2021 passed by the V Addl. Small Causes

¶38

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19007-DB MFA No. 7124 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Judge & XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Member, M.A.C.T (for short, 'the Tribunal') in M.V.C No.3669/2019.

¶41

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

¶42

Heard, Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel

¶43

appearing for the Insurer and Sri.Gurudev Prasad.K.T, learned counsel appearing for the claimants. Respondent No.3 though served, is unrepresented.

¶44

On two point Sri.B.Pradeep, submits that the Tribunal has failed to fasten appropriate contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and since the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal ought to have considered the personal expenses at 50% instead of 1/3^rd and sought to allow the appeal.

¶45

Though Sri.Gurudev Prasad.K.T, opposing the contentions of Sri.B.Pradeep, argued in support of the

¶46

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19007-DB MFA No. 7124 of 2021

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Judgment of the Tribunal, however he is not in dispute with regard to the status of the deceased as bachelor as on the date of accident and the deduction towards personal expenses have been 50% and not 1/3^rd as no special and exceptional circumstances are made out. So far as contributory negligence is concerned, counsel submits that the Tribunal having considered the entire aspect of the matter, rightly fastened 10% contributory negligence on the deceased who was the rider of the motorcycle, which does not need any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶49

Having considered the rival submissions, we

¶50

have perused the entire appeal paper and the Trial Court record.

¶51

The following points would arise for

¶52

consideration:

¶53

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19007-DB MFA No. 7124 of 2021

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

1. Whether the Tribunal is right in fastening

¶56

only 10% contributory negligence on the

¶57

deceased rider of the motorcycle?

¶58

1. Whether the Insurer has made out any

¶59

case for reduction of compensation?

¶60

Our answer to both the points are partly in the

¶61

affirmative for the following:

¶62

REASONS

¶63

POINT NO.1 : It is not in dispute that the

¶64

deceased was riding the motorcycle along with two pillions. As per the Sketch, the accident occurred in the middle of the road and the road was a two way road. The Tribunal though observed in Paragraph 18 of the Judgment

¶65

that the deceased was also required to be careful before riding in such a road which is nearly 15 feet in width and it

¶66

appears that the deceased might have lost control by

¶67

having two pillions on his back, which amounts to

¶68

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19007-DB MFA No. 7124 of 2021

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

contributory negligence, however fastened only 10% contributory negligence. In our considered view, if 20% contributory negligence is fastened on the deceased - rider of the motorcycle and 80% on the driver of the offending

¶71

vehicle, the same would meet the ends of justice.

¶72

POINT NO.2 : Admittedly, the deceased was a

¶73

bachelor as on the date of death. In view of the settled position of law laid down by the Apex Court, deduction towards personal expenses must be 50% and not 1/3^rd in the absence of exceptional or special case made out. In the case on hand, there is no such case having been made

¶74

out, the Tribunal has erred in law in deducting 1/3^rd of the actual income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, we fix the deduction towards personal expenses at 50% instead of 1/3^rd . The accident is of the year 2019, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the claimants are entitled for 10% escalation on the compensation awarded under conventional heads.

¶75

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:19007-DB MFA No. 7124 of 2021

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

Accordingly, we answer Point No.2 partly in the affirmative. For the foregoing reasons, the Insurer succeeds on both the grounds i.e., contributory negligence and reduction of quantum of compensation.

¶78

In view of the above, the compensation

¶79

awarded by the Tribunal requires re-determination, and it is reassessed as under:

¶80

Sl. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs.	By this Court In Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	26,65,600-00	19,99,200-00 (2,35,200 x 17 x 50%)
2.	Loss of Estate	15,000-00	15,000-00
3.	Loss of consortium	80,000-00	80,000-00
4.	Funeral expenses	15,000-00	15,000-00
5.	10% escalation (for two terms of three completed years on conventional heads)	-	22,000
	TOTAL	27,75,600-00	21,31,200-00

¶81

Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for reassessed compensation of Rs.21,31,200/-, rounded off at Rs.21,32,000/- as against Rs.27,75,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till

¶82

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:19007-DB MFA No. 7124 of 2021

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

realization. The Insurer is liable to pay 80% of the

¶85

reassessed compensation.

¶86

For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

(i) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶89

(ii) The Judgment and award dated 23.09.2021 passed by the V Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Member, M.A.C.T in M.V.C No.3669/2019 is modified.

¶90

(iii) The claimants are entitled for reassessed

¶91

compensation of Rs.21,32,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till realization.

¶92

(iv) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶93

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:19007-DB MFA No. 7124 of 2021

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

(v) The Insurer shall deposit 80% of the reassessed compensation before the concerned Tribunal along with accrued interest, within six weeks from the date of

¶96

receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶97

(vi) The apportionment and disbursement are unaltered.

¶98

(vii) No order as to costs.

¶99

(viii) The registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court record forthwith.

¶100

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶101

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶102

TKN

¶103

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

The Legal Manager Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. v. Kempanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Legal Manager Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. v. Kempanna

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

Union of India Vs Dr. Amaragouda L Patil

Smt. Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Zahid Hussain Vs Mr. Murali

State of Karnataka, Vs Sri. Chandrappa

M/S Viriginia Developers Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers Vs the Commissioner