Sri. B. S. Manjunath Vs M/S. Corzowrent India Pvt. Ltd.

SRI. B. S. MANJUNATH S/O. B. C. SRINIVASAN, NOW AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SINCE APPELLANT IS INCAPABLE OF PROTECTING HIS INTEREST IN THIS APPEAL DUE TO PHYSICAL AND MENTAL DISABILITY, HE IS DULY REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND, HIS WIFE, SMT. S. PREMA, W/O. B. S. MANJUNATH, NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶15

RESIDING AT NO. 42, POLMGROVE ROAD, VICTORIA LAYOUT - AUSTIN TOWN, BENGALURU-560 047.

¶16

…APPELLANT

¶17

(BY SRI. BHAT ANANTA KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

M/S. CORZOWRENT INDIA PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, NO. 476, 8TH BLOCK,

¶20

ADUGODI,

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

KORAMANGALA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 021.

¶25

THE MANAGER M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 4/3/1, AND 3/2 M, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 061.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.ASHOK N.PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SATHYANARAYANA REDDY K., ADVOCATE FOR R2;)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.2141/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, BENGALURU, SCCH-22, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION.

¶29

IN MFA NO. 4506/2022

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

THE REGIONAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD NO.4/3/1, AND 3/2 M 11TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560061 ALSO AT M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INS CO LTD NO.28,5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD,BENGALURU-560001 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL

¶32

...APPELLANT

¶33

(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

SRI. B. S. MANJUNATH S/O B C SRINIVASAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SINCE INCAPABLE OF PROTECTION HIS INTEREST DULY REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE / GUARDIAN / LEGAL HEIR SMT S PREMA W/O B S MANJUNATH R/AT NO.42, POLMGROVE ROAD VICTORIA LAYOUT, AUSTIN TOWN BENGALURU-560047

¶38

M/S CARZONRENT INDIA PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,

¶39

NO.476

¶40

8TH BLOCK, ADUGODI KORAMANGALA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560030

¶41

...RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI.A.K.BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.SATHYANARAYANA REDDY.K., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.04.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.2141/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, BENGALURU, (SCCH-22), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.57,24,966/WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT.

¶43

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

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶48

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

¶49

These two appeals by Claimant as well as Insurer are filed calling in question the Judgment and award dated 04.04.2022 in M.V.C No.2141/2012 passed by the XX Addl. Small Causes Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (SCCH22) (for short, 'the Tribunal').

¶50

The Insurer filed MFA No.4506/2022 calling in question the liability, whereas the Claimant has filed MFA No.7528/2022 seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶51

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶52

The brief facts leading for filing of these appeals are as under:

¶53

In an accident occurred on 04.10.2011 at about 11:30 pm., the claimant who was a passenger in a Car bearing No.KA-01-D-4630 sustained severe injuries due to the accident caused by the driver of the car. The driver

¶54

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

driving the car in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the Car and hit the basement of the street light pole and again dashed in reverse to another car bearing No.KA01-AA-6572.

¶57

In the accident, the claimant has sustained severe injuries. Accordingly, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- contending that

¶58

he was working in CPRI as Joint Director at Diagnostic Cables and Capacitors division and earning Rs.98,790/per month. Due to the injuries, he was forced to leave his job. He was not paid salary from 01.02.2012 to 24.12.2014 i.e., for a period of 2 years 10 months.

¶59

Upon notice, the owner of the Car - respondent No.2, since not appeared was placed ex-parte . Respondent No.1 - Insurer appeared and filed statement of objections denying the entire case of the claimant, specifically contending that there is no MLC report of Columbia Asia Hospital, which pre-supports that there is involvement of vehicle.

¶60

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

The Tribunal upon completion of pleadings,

¶63

framed in all 3 issues and answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative which is in respect of negligent driving of the Car and liability of the Insurer. Issue No.2 is with regard to entitlement of compensation and it was answered partly in the Affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.57,24,966/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. It is this Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is called in question by both claimant and the Insurer in these two appeals.

¶64

Sri.Ashok N.Patil., with all vehemence submits that in the absence of MLC report regarding road traffic accident, it is clear that the claimant in active collusion with the owner of the Car as well as Police, have created false case involving the vehicle. He further submits that one of the Officials from BESCOM has been examined as a witness, who has deposed that no damage is found on the electric pole. With this, he contends that the case of the claimant that the Car being driven in rash and negligent manner by the driver who lost control over it and hit

¶65

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

against the electric pole, in the absence of damage found on the electric pole, the entire case put forth by the claimant is false. He further submits that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the Tribunal while answering Issue No.1 and requires re-consideration and sought to allow the appeal filed by the Insurer and exonerate the Insurer from liability to pay the compensation.

¶68

Sri.A.K.Bhat., learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the appeal filed by the Insurer and appellant in the connected appeal, with all vehemence submits that the accident has occurred at 11:30 pm., It is on record that the police who was on night duty reported the accident immediately thereafter i.e., on 05.10.2011 at 2:15 am., to the station. The complaint has been filed by Police who was on night rounds at the place where the accident had taken place. Immediately after the accident, he called the ambulance and shifted the injured to the hospital and reported the accident immediately thereafter to the police station. In these circumstances, the

¶69

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurer regarding the collusion as well as fixing the vehicle within a span of 3 hours, that too, when the claimant has sustained severe injuries which resulted in 100% disability, cannot be countenanced and requires to be ruled out. He submits that as far as MLC report not produced by the Columbia Asia Hospital, it is not attributable to the claimant. If there is any fault on the part of the staff of the hospital in maintaining MLC register, cannot be taken adversely against the interest of the claimant since the accident/ crime is immediately reported by the police who was on night rounds without there being any other interventions. In these circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the accident is proved in accordance with law.

¶72

He further submits that the case as per the complaint is that the accident is caused by hitting the base of the electric pole and not the pole. In these circumstances, even if there is any evidence by the official of BESCOM that no damage is found on the electric pole is

¶73

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

of no use to the Insurer to contend that no accident has taken place.

¶76

Further, he submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for future loss of income. The appellant has got another 6 years of service which has not been taken note of by the Tribunal and the same requires to be granted. He also submits that the Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant at Rs.89,033/- per month after deducting the income tax of Rs.2,14,737/from Rs.12,83,137/-. He submits that as on the date of accident, the claimant was earning Rs.1,02,647/- as per Ex.P.17. In these circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have awarded appropriate compensation towards loss of future earning. Counsel submits that the claimant was aged 54 years at the time of accident, he was a permanent employee under the Central Government and 15% is required to be added towards future income in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court. This has been missed by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. Though the Tribunal has considered the

¶77

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

disability suffered at 100%, considering the fact that he has suffered head injury and lost control over urination due to damage caused to the part of the brain, his urinary bladder got disabled at 100% which causes the blockage of urine. The doctor who has been examined, clearly stated regarding the disability and the pathetic condition of the injured claimant. He further submits that there is no perception of light by left eye at 60% and he is unable to walk without support. He has developed skin disease and also found to have scar epilepsy due to the brain injury. Considering all these factors though the Tribunal has considered the disability at 100%, however failed to award any compensation under the head 'Loss of future income'

¶80

and sought to allow the appeal filed by the claimant by awarding compensation under the head 'loss of future income'.

¶81

At this stage, learned counsel Sri.Ashok N.Patil., with all vehemence contends that the claimant has got only 6 years of service left and he would be paid pension

¶82

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

that require to be deducted from the income by applying split multiplier.

¶85

Having considered the rival submissions, we are satisfied that the reasoning of the Tribunal while answering Issue No.1, wherein the Tribunal exhaustively considering the statement of objection filed by the Insurer as well as the evidence, comes to a conclusion that it is the driver who was rash and negligently driving the Car is responsible for the accident, for which the appellant has sustained severe injuries resulting in 100% disability. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurer cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurer has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurer is dismissed .

¶86

So far as enhancement of compensation is concerned, as rightly contended by Sri.A.K.Bhat., the Tribunal though considered the disability at 100% and even considered the income of the claimant at Rs.89,033/-

¶87

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

per month after deducting the income tax, but failed to award appropriate compensation under the head 'Loss of future income'. The split multiplier as contended is no more res integra . The Apex Court in PREETHA

¶90

KRISHNAN AND OTHERS VS. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & OTHERS in SLP (C) Nos.9753-56/2025 decided on 06.11.2025, wherein at Paragraph 18 of the Judgment, the Apex Court has held as under:

¶91

" 18 . The judgment referred to by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, i.e., K.R.Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer and Puttamma v. K.L.Narayana Reddy & Ors., in our considered view, does not support the use of a split multiplier. In both these judgments, this Court has held that there have to be cogent reasons recorded for its use. As already observed above, retirement from service is not 'out of the ordinary', 'exceptional' and 'cogent' for the same to qualify. It is also, a matter of considerable difficulty to conceive what such cogent or exceptional circumstances may be. In any event, the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) had, in para 59.7 observed that the age of the deceased is the criterion to be utilized for multiplier. It does not provide for any other possibilities. This, in our considered view, does not

¶92

13 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

even leave open the possibility of employment of split multiplier, whatsoever. As such, when dealing with a beneficial legislation which relies on just compensation as its bedrock, it is most prudent to tread the path of certainty, insofar as practicable. This is more so important in the context of age which is the primary basis for computation of compensation. In other words, split multiplier is a concept foreign to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is not to be used by the Tribunal and/or Courts in calculation of the compensation."

¶96

The Hon'ble Apex Court has now settled the law that split multiplier cannot be applied in motor vehicle claim cases. It is also clear from the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI 's case wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court provided for adding future prospectus up to 60 years.

¶97

At this stage, both the learned counsel for claimant as well as Insurer in unison submit that if the income is taken at Rs.29,033/- after deducting pension of Rs.60,000/- from Rs.89,033/-, and by adding 15% to the said income if compensation is awarded, it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we proceed to reassess the

¶98

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

compensation only with respect to 'Loss of future earning',

¶101

as under:

¶102

"29,033 + 15% X 12 X 11 = Rs.44,07,209.4/-. "

¶103

On re-determination, the claimant is entitled for

¶104

the following compensation:

¶105

Sl. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs.	By this Court In Rs.
1.	Loss of income during the laid up period	22,25,825-00	Nil
2.	Medical expenses	12,07,141-00	12,07,141-00
3.	Pain and Sufferings and loss of amenities	10,00,000-00	10,00,000-00
4.	Food and nourishment and attendant charges	1,00,000-00	1,00,000-00
5.	Attendant charges	7,92,000-00	7,92,000-00
6.	Transportation Charges	1,00,000-00	1,00,000-00
7.	Future medical treatment	3,00,000-00	3,00,000-00
8.	Loss of Future income	-	44,07,209-40
	TOTAL	57,24,966-00	79,06,350-40

¶106

Hence, the claimant is entitled for reassessed compensation of Rs.79,06,350.40/-, rounded off at Rs.79,06,500/- as against Rs.57,24,966/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

¶107

15 -

¶108

NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

ORDER

¶111

i) MFA.No.4506/2022 filed by the Insurer is dismissed. MFA.No.7528/2022 filed by the claimant is allowed in part .

¶112

ii) The judgment and award dated 04.04.2022 in M.V.C No.2141/2012 passed by the XX Addl. Small Causes Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (SCCH-22) is modified and the compensation is re-determined.

¶113

iii) The claimant is entitled for re-determined compensation of Rs.79,06,500/- as against Rs.57,24,966/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶114

iv) The amount in deposit in Insurer's appeal shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. v) The Insurer shall deposit the entire compensation with interest stated supra

¶115

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:17121-DB MFA No. 7528 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4506 of 2022

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

within six weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order, before the concerned Tribunal.

¶118

vi) Upon deposit, 25% shall be released in favor of the appellant on proper identification and balance 75% shall be kept in any interest bearing FDR with any nationalized bank for a period of 5 years, without permitting any loan on the amount in the absence of any order by the Tribunal/ Court, however with liberty to withdraw the periodical interest on the amount in deposit.

¶119

vii) The registry is directed to transmit the trial Court record forthwith.

¶120

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶121

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶122

TKN

¶123

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Sri. B. S. Manjunath v. M/S. Corzowrent India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B. S. Manjunath v. M/S. Corzowrent India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Legal Manager Vs Mruthunjaya Hiremath

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Government of Karnataka

K. S. Srinath Vs the Managing Director

Mrs Usha P S Vs Jain College

Sri. Aurangazeb @ Kabeeruddin Vs the Manager

Sri. Sattar Mujahid Khan S Vs Royal Sundaram All Ins Co. Ltd.