The Cholamandalam Ms Geeral Insurance Company Limited v. Smt R Rukmani

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2026MFA/8377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an insurer appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident death claim. The High Court allowed the appeal on merits, reducing the compensation from Rs.25.71 lakhs to Rs.15.47 lakhs by reassessing the notional income per Andhra Pradesh guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed in part; compensation reduced to Rs.15,47,792/-; original award of Rs.25,71,584/- modified.

The Cholamandalam Ms Geeral Insurance Company… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19135-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2024

¶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 S.G.PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

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

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 8377 OF 2024 (MV-D)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, UNIT No.4, 9^TH FLOOR,

¶13

GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 59^TH 'C' CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJINAGAR, 4^TH 'M' BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 010, REP. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL.

¶14

&APPELLANT

¶15

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

(BY SRI D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT. R. RUKMANI, W/O. LATE R. KRISHNAMOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶19

KUMARI R. VARSHITHA, D/O. LATE R. KRISHNAMOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,

¶20

KUMARI R. HARSHITHA, D/O. LATE R. KRISHNAMOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:19135-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

MASTER R. RANJITH KUMAR, S/O. LATE R. KRISHNAMOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

¶25

SINCE RESPONDENT No.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN / NEXT FRIEND SMT. R. RUKMANI, THE RESPONDENT No.1

¶26

ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.4, -56B, CHINTHALAGUNT JOUNIPALLI, VENKATAGIRIKOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517424.

¶27

SRI. SADHU VENKATASUBBA REDDY, S/O. SADHU NAGIREDDY, MAJOR, R/AT No.51/158A, NGO COLONY, KOTHAPETA, RAYACHOTY MANDALAM, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH-516 269.

¶28

&RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI A. K. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.S. KAILAS SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; (R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1))

¶30

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.12.2023 PASSED IN MVC No.1908/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-26 AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.25,71,584/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A.FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:19135-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

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

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

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

¶38

Heard Sri D. Vijaykumar, learned counsel for the appellant-

¶39

Insurer and Sri A. K. Bhat, learned counsel for Sri P.S. Kailas Shankar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4-claimants.

¶40

The Insurer has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 28.12.2023 passed in MVC No.1908/2021 by the XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge and the MACT and ACMM, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as <the Tribunal=).

¶41

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

¶42

The claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation

¶43

on account of the accidental death of R. Krishnamoorthy in a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.03.2021 at about 3.30 p.m., involving a tractor and trailer bearing Reg.Nos.AP-04-UA0944 and AP-39-W-8114. It is contended that the accident

¶44

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19135-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said tractor. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged about 42 years and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000 per month as a mason.

¶47

4.1 Notice was served on respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.1, having chosen not to appear and contest the proceedings, was placed ex parte . Respondent No.23Insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement, denying the averments made in the claim petition. However, it admitted the issuance of the policy in respect of the tractor.

¶48

4.2 Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 was marked.

¶49

4.3 The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, placing reliance on the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA). The

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19135-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 42 years, applied the appropriate multiplier of 14, added 25% towards future prospects to the assessed income, and deducted one-fourth towards personal and living expenses. In addition, compensation was awarded under the conventional heads. Thus, in all, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.25,71,584/-.

¶53

Sri D. Vijaykumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant3Insurer, submits that both the deceased and the petitioners are residents of the State of Andhra Pradesh. He further submits that the accident occurred within the State of Andhra Pradesh and that the owner of the offending vehicle is also a resident of the said State. It is contended that the Insurer has its office within the State of Andhra Pradesh. On these grounds, it is urged that the claim petition filed before the MACT, Bengaluru, is without jurisdiction and is contrary to sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, <the MV Act=).

¶54

5.1 Learned counsel further submits that the present claim petition has been filed before this Court without jurisdiction, with a view to secure a higher notional income as is adopted by this

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:19135-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Court, and also to avoid the payment of court fee that would be payable if the claim petition were to be filed before the Tribunal within the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶59

5.2 Learned counsel, in the alternative and without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, submits that once the Tribunal has proceeded to assess the notional monthly income, the same ought to have been determined in accordance with the guidelines issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and not on the basis of the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

¶60

Sri A. K. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for Sri P.S. Kailas

¶61

Shankar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 43claimants, submits that the petitioners are entitled to choose the forum for filing the claim petition at a place where the Insurer has its office. It is, therefore, contended that the claim petition filed before the MACT, Bengaluru, is maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and is based on the evidence on record.

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:19135-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶66

It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was a resident of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The claimants are also residents of Andhra Pradesh. The owner of the offending vehicle is likewise a resident of Andhra Pradesh. It is also not in dispute that the Insurer has its office within the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶67

8.1 Learned counsel for the claimants, inviting the attention of this Court to sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the MV Act, contends that the claim petition was maintainable before the MACT, Bengaluru. After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the claimants has filed a memo dated 07.04.2026, agreeing to adopt the notional income as per the guidelines issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of computing compensation in motor vehicle accident cases. The said memo is taken on record.

¶68

8.2 As per the guidelines issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which is placed before this Court, the notional income for an accident of the year 2021 is Rs.8,500/- per month. Since

¶69

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:19135-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

the compensation awarded under other heads is not in dispute, we reassess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,500/per month as against Rs.15,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal.

¶72

8.3 The age of the deceased, the applicable multiplier, the addition of 25% towards future prospects, and the deduction of one-fourth towards personal and living expenses are not in dispute. The compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also not in dispute.

¶73

The total compensation is re-computed as under; 8,500 + (25% of 8,500) = 10,625/10,625 3 (1/4^th of 10,625) = 7,969/7,969 X 12 X 14 = Rs.13,38,792 /-

¶74

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation by the Tribunal	Compensation by this Court
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs.23,62,584/-	Rs.13,38,792/-
2.	Loss of consortium to petitioner No.1	Rs.44,000/-	Rs.44,000/-
3.	Loss of parental consortium to petitioners No.2 to 4 (44,000x3)	Rs.1,32,000/-	Rs.1,32,000/-
4.	Loss of estate	Rs.16,500/-	Rs.16,500/-
5.	Funeral expenses	Rs.16,500/-	Rs.16,500/-
	Total Compensation	Rs.25,71,584	Rs.15,47,792/-
	Reduced Compensation	Rs.10,2	3,792/-

¶75

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:19135-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2024

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,47,792/- as against the compensation awarded by Tribunal at Rs.25,71,584/-

¶79

11. Accordingly, the following;

¶80

Order

¶81

(i) The appeal is allowed in-part.

¶82

(ii) The Judgment and award dated 28.12.2023 in MVC No.1908/2021 passed by the XXIV Additional Small causes Judge and ACMM, Bengaluru, is modified to the above extent.

¶83

(iii) The claimants/petitioners are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.15,47,792/as against Rs.25,71,584/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶84

(iv) The conditions imposed by the Tribunal with regard interest, deposit, apportionment and disbursement of the amount is maintained.

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:19135-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2024

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

(v) The Registry is directed to transfer the amount

¶89

in deposit, if any, to the Tribunal, forthwith.

¶90

(vi) Draw modified decree accordingly.

¶91

(vii) No order as to costs.

¶92

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶93

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶94

MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

The Cholamandalam Ms Geeral Insurance Company Limited v. Smt R Rukmani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Cholamandalam Ms Geeral Insurance Company Limited v. Smt R Rukmani

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

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Vinay Kumar Patil

Mr N D Hanume Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Karnataka State Government Pharmacists Association

The Manager Vs Smt. Chaithra U M

The Managing Director Vs Smt. Shivakala. T. v.

The Manager Vs Smt. Revathi B S