Partly allowed

Mamatha v. B S Chidananda Reddy

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2026MFA/9510/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of compensation for the death of Ramesh, a bus conductor, in a 2012 road accident; the insurer disputed liability citing absence of a valid permit. The High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.16,01,200 with 6% interest and applied pay-and-recovery, permitting the insurer to recover from the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.16,01,200 with 6% p.a. interest; insurer to deposit Rs.7,06,200 within one month and may recover from owner.

Mamatha Vs B S Chidananda Reddy — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:37428 MFA No. 9510 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 3932 of 2015

¶4

CNR: KAHC010490292015

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9510 OF 2015 (MV-D)

¶10

C/W

¶11

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3932 OF 2015 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 9510/2015

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

MAMATHA W/O LATE RAMESH,

¶14

NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶15

2. PUNITH

¶16

S/O LATE RAMESH

¶17

NOW AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,

¶18

CHANDANA

¶19

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶20

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶21

D/O LATE RAMESH

¶22

NOW AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,

¶23

APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER i.e., APPELLANT NO.1 ALL ARE R/O BOVI COLONY, B.D.ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶24

…APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RANGE GOWDA N.R, ADVOCATE)

¶26

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:37428 MFA No. 9510 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 3932 of 2015

¶29

CNR: KAHC010490292015

¶30

AND:

¶31

B.S. CHIDANANDA REDDY S/O SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED MAJOR,

¶32

R/O HEAD POST OFFICE ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501.

¶33

THE BRANCH MANAGER IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE OPP: OM GANESHA TRACTOR, SHANKAR MATT ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶34

BOOTHA BOVI

¶35

S/O KENGA BOVI, NOW AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, HUNASAKATTE VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H.K. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶38

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.3.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.457/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT-5, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶39

IN MFA NO. 3932/2015

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

THE BRANCH MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GIC LTD.,

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:37428 MFA No. 9510 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 3932 of 2015

¶45

CNR: KAHC010490292015

¶46

BRANCH OFFICE, OPP: OM GANESHA TRACTOR, SHANKARMATT ROAD, SHVAMOGGA, NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GIC LTD., CUSTOMER TOWERS CENTER, SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, NO.141, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶47

...APPELLANT

¶48

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE)

¶49

AND:

¶50

MAMATHA

¶51

W/O LATE RAMESH,

¶52

NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶53

PUNIT

¶54

S/O LATE RAMESH,

¶55

NOW AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,

¶56

3. CHANDANA

¶57

D/O LATE RAMESH,

¶58

NOW AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,

¶59

RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN, R/O BOBI COLONY B.D. ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶60

B.S. CHIDANANDA REDDY S/O SRINIVASA REDDY,

¶61

R/O HEAD POST OFFICE ROAD,

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:37428 MFA No. 9510 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 3932 of 2015

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

CNR: KAHC010490292015

¶66

CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501.

¶67

BOOTHA BOVI S/O KENGA BOVI, NOW AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, HUNASEKATTE VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501.

¶68

...RESPONDENTS

¶69

(BY SRI. N.R. RANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. A. ANANDA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. H.K. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶70

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.457/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & ADDITIONAL MACT-V, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,95,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 7.5% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶71

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,

¶72

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶73

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶74

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶75

Both the matters are to be disposed of in one appeal,

¶76

as both the appeals are filed against the same order, hence, common order is passed in both the appeals.

¶77

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:37428 MFA No. 9510 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 3932 of 2015

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

CNR: KAHC010490292015

¶80

MFA No.9510/2015 is filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the

¶81

compensation and MFA No.3932/2015 is filed by the Insurance Company disputing the liability under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 30.03.2015 passed in MVC No.457/2012 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT-V, Chitradurga.

¶82

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶83

both sides. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶84

Brief facts of the case are that, one Ramesh,

¶85

met with an accident on 09.05.2012 and succumbed to the injuries subsequently. His wife, children and father filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.8,95,000/-

¶86

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:37428 MFA No. 9510 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 3932 of 2015

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

CNR: KAHC010490292015

¶89

with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit.

¶90

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/claimants preferred MFA No.9510/2015

¶91

contending that the Ramesh/deceased was working as a conductor and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. But the Tribunal erred in taking his income as Rs.4,000/- per month. The deceased/Ramesh was aged 35 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal adopted multiplier of '15' instead of '16'. The Tribunal has not granted reasonable amounts under the other heads. The interest is to be granted at the rate of 9% per annum. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶92

The Branch Manager of IFFCO-TOKIO GIC Ltd., also filed MFA No.3932/2015 disputing the liability. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contended that the deceased/Ramesh was travelling as a conductor in bus bearing Reg.No.KA-16-A-5093. At that time, the driver of the said bus driven the vehicle in a rash

¶93

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:37428 MFA No. 9510 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 3932 of 2015

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

CNR: KAHC010490292015

¶96

and negligent manner. As a result, the deceased/Ramesh fell down from the bus, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries subsequently. The deceased/Ramesh was aged 35 years and was working as a conductor, earning Rs.9,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.4,000/- per month, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted 1/4^th of the income towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of '15'. It is further contended that the vehicle did not possess a valid permit as on the date of accident. The deceased/Ramesh was not having conductor licence. The deceased/Ramesh met with an accident due to his own negligence. As there is no permit, it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal erred in taking 50% towards future prospects and therefore, requested for modification of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶97

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:37428 MFA No. 9510 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 3932 of 2015

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

CNR: KAHC010490292015

¶100

It is stated that one Ramesh was travelling as a conductor in the bus. But the insurance company objected the same on the ground that the deceased was not having any license. The vehicle involved in the accident was a private bus and no income proof is filed before the Tribunal. As the deceased met with an accident in the year 2012, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.7,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The deceased was aged 35 years and the relevant multiplier is '16'. The deceased wife, children and father filed claim petition. Therefore, 40% is to be added towards future prospects and one-fourth is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,11,200/- (7,000+40%x12x16-1/4^th ). The petitioner No.1 is entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium,

¶101

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

NC: 2026:KHC:37428 MFA No. 9510 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 3932 of 2015

¶104

CNR: KAHC010490292015

¶105

respondent No.3 is entitled for Rs.40,000 /- towards filial consortium and they are also entitled for Rs.30,000/-

¶106

towards conventional heads.

¶107

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court

¶108

is as below:

¶109

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Towards loss of dependency	14,11,200/-
2	Towards spousal consortium	40,000/-
3	Towards parental consortium (petitioner No.2 and 3)	80,000/-
4.	Towards filial consortium	40,000/-
3	Towards conventional heads	30,000/-
	Total	16,01,200/-

¶110

Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled for

¶111

a total compensation of Rs.16,01,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶112

Admittedly, there is no permit at the time of the

¶113

accident. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶114

Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and

¶115

10 -

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

NC: 2026:KHC:37428 MFA No. 9510 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 3932 of 2015

¶118

CNR: KAHC010490292015

¶119

Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Com. Ltd.

¶120

and Others¹ , the insurance company is liable for pay and recovery. Therefore, insurance company is at liberty to

¶121

recover the same from owner of the vehicle.

¶122

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶123

ORDER

¶124

i. MFA No.9510/2015 is allowed.

¶125

ii. MFA No.3932/2015 is allowed in part.

¶126

iii. The judgment and award dated 30.03.2015 passed in MVC No.457/2012 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT-V, Chitradurga, is modified.

¶127

iv. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.16,01,200/- along with interest at 6%

¶128

p.a., from the date of petition till the date

¶129

1 (2018) 7 SCC 558

¶130

11 -

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

NC: 2026:KHC:37428 MFA No. 9510 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 3932 of 2015

¶133

CNR: KAHC010490292015

¶134

of realization, instead of Rs.8,95,000/granted by the tribunal.

¶135

v. Appellant/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.7,06,200/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶136

vi. On such deposit, petitioners/claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶137

vii. Insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶138

viii. The amount in deposit is to be transferred

¶139

to the MACT.

¶140

12 -

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

NC: 2026:KHC:37428 MFA No. 9510 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 3932 of 2015

¶143

CNR: KAHC010490292015

¶144

ix. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal immediately.

¶145

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶146

AMA

¶147

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Mamatha v. B S Chidananda Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamatha v. B S Chidananda Reddy

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

Smt Manpreeth R Vs Sri Sandeep R

Smt. Meghashri. D Vs Sri. Bharathesh

Brinda S N Vs Manoj Deshpande

The Branch Manager Vs Mamatha

Sheetal Sony Vs Shlav Kumar

The Manager Vs Smt. Gowri