Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:604-DB MFA No. 232 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 232 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., OPP. SRIRAMA MANDIRA TEMPLE, 1ST FLOOR, BARLINE, K. R. EXTENSION, GENERAL KARIYAPPA ROAD, TUMKUR-1,
REPRESENTED BY THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., TP HUB, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, No.9/2, 2ND FLOOR, M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560001, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR C. R., ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. REKHA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O LATE BHAVANI PRASAD,
SRI SURAJ B, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O LATE BHAVANI PRASAD,
Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:604-DB MFA No. 232 of 2024
BOTH ARE R/AT 4TH CROSS, GOKULA EXTENSION, TUMKUR 572104.
SMT. PARASHURAMAPPA TALWALAGALU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SRI NANDYAPPA, R/O BEHIND VENKATESHWARA WEIGH BRIDGE, KODIYAL HOSPETE, KUMARAPATNAME, RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT 581123, (R C OWNER OF RENAULT PULSE CAR BEARING No.KA-27-M-7682) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H. MUJTABHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PARASHURAM K. R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2; SRI PRAKASH M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC No.796/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.77,32,522/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:604-DB MFA No. 232 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)
Heard Sri C.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri H. Mujtabha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Praksh M. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
This appeal is filed by the insurer assailing the judgment and award dated 04.10.2023 passed in MVC No.796/2020 by the III Additional District Judge & MACT, Tumakuru1.
The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 -claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19882, seeking compensation. The claimants are the wife and son of Bhavani Prasad (the deceased). On 24.12.2019, at about 3.30 p.m., Bhavani Prasad, while riding his Hero Honda motorbike bearing Regn. No.KA-06-U-6364, met with an accident involving a car bearing Regn. No.KA-27-M-7682.
1 Tribunal 2 M.V. Act
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:604-DB MFA No. 232 of 2024
3.1 It is alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car. It is further stated that the driver of the said car suddenly applied brake without giving any indication, as a result of which, Bhavani Prasad lost control of his motorbike and dashed against the rear portion of the car. Consequently, he fell down, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.
3.2 It is stated that the deceased Bhavani Prasad was working as a Branch Manager at Karnataka Grameena Bank, Tumakuru and was drawing a salary of ₹1,25,000/- per month.
3.3 Upon service of notice, the insurer filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition, including the age, occupation and income of the deceased, as well as the date, time, and place of the accident. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. While admitting the existence of the Insurance Policy in respect of the offending vehicle, the insurer contended that the driver of the offending car did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the relevant point of time.
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:604-DB MFA No. 232 of 2024
3.4 Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P17. The insurer examined five witnesses, namely: RW.1, Administrative Officer (legal) of the Insurance Company; RW.2 and RW.3, the driver and owner of the offending car respectively; RW.4, Administrative Officer of Karnataka Grameena Bank and RW.5, Manager of Karnataka Grameena Bank and marked Exhibits R1 to R9.
3.5 The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹1,04,669/-, applied the multiplier of ‘9’ having regard to the age of the deceased being 57 years, and added 15% towards future prospects, considering that the deceased was in permanent employment. The Tribunal deducted professional tax and income tax from the income so assessed.
3.6 The Tribunal further awarded compensation under the heads of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. In all, the Tribunal determined the total compensation at
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:604-DB MFA No. 232 of 2024
₹77,32,522/- and directed the insurer to indemnify the owner of the offending car.
Sri C.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the deceased Bhavani Prasad was not in permanent employment and therefore, the addition of 15% towards future prospects is on the higher side and ought to have been restricted to 10%.
4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased himself. It is contended that the accident occurred on a National Highway and that the deceased, who was riding on the left side of the road, without noticing the car, negligently dashed against it and succumbed to the injuries sustained. Learned counsel submits that the deceased had also contributed to the negligence and, therefore, the entire liability could not have been fastened on the insurer.
4.2 It is further submitted that the death occurred due to the injuries sustained and that the same could have been avoided had the deceased been wearing a headgear. Learned
- 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:604-DB MFA No. 232 of 2024
counsel also contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
Sri H. Mujtabha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal is based on the proved and established income of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that while the deceased was riding his motorbike on the extreme left side of the road, the driver of the offending car, without giving any indication, suddenly turned left and stopped the vehicle, as a result of which the accident occurred.
5.1 It is further submitted that, had the driver of the offending car exercised due caution before stopping the vehicle on the National Highway, the accident could have been avoided. Hence, learned counsel contends that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the offending car.
Sri Prakash M. Patil, learned counsel appears for respondent No.3-owner of the vehicle.
- 8 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:604-DB MFA No. 232 of 2024
Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The involvement of vehicle, death of Bhavani Prasad and liability of the Insurer are not in dispute.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased was not in permanent employment. It is, however, not in dispute that the deceased was working as a Branch Manager at Karnataka Grameena Bank. The insurer examined the bank employees as RW.4 and RW.5 in support of its contention.
Though it was contended that the deceased was not in permanent employment, no contrary evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the said contention. There is no material produced by the insurer to establish that the deceased was not holding a permanent post. The deceased was working as a Branch Manager as on the date of the accident, and the nature of the post itself indicates that the deceased was in permanent employment. Therefore, the Tribunal was
- 9 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:604-DB MFA No. 232 of 2024
justified in adding 15% of the assessed income towards future prospects.
The appellant has contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Ex.P17—the spot sketch—depicts the site of the accident. The width of the road is 40 feet and the deceased was riding on the extreme left side. It is a matter of common knowledge that two-wheelers and slow-moving vehicles ordinarily ply on the extreme left side of the road.
The contention of the appellant is that the offending car, after overtaking the motorbike, suddenly stopped as one of the occupants felt a vomiting sensation. This contention itself indicates that the deceased had not changed his lane; on the contrary, it was the offending car which changed its lane and came to a sudden halt.
The next issue for consideration is, whether the driver of the car had given any indication before stopping the vehicle. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the driver of the car had given any signal or indication of stopping,
- 10 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:604-DB MFA No. 232 of 2024
so as to enable the deceased to anticipate the same. In the absence of such evidence, the very fact of sudden stopping would lead to an inference that no such indication was given.
In the absence of any contrary evidence placed before this Court, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car cannot be faulted. The said finding is based on the evidence on record and does not warrant interference.
Another contention raised by the appellant is that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained as a result of not wearing a headgear. However, Insurer's witness RW.2, in his chief-examination, has categorically admitted that the deceased was wearing a headgear at the time of the accident. In view of this clear admission, the contention so raised is liable to be rejected.
Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads is concerned, the same is in conformity with the
- 11 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:604-DB MFA No. 232 of 2024
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and does not call for interference.
In the light of the above findings and observations, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63