Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 -
MFA.No.112/2019
RESERVED ON : 31.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 27.01.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.112 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISION OFFICE, MELAGIRI PLAZA, M.C.C. ‘B’ BLOCK, DAVANAGERE – 04.
REPRESENTED BY: THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO 144, SHUBHRAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
…APPELLANT (BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. DILSHAD BEGUM, W/O LATE SYED AMANULLA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
SYED ZUBER, S/O LATE SYED AMANULLA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
SYED SAFEER, S/O LATE SYED AMANULLA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
- 2 -
MFA.No.112/2019
SYED SUHEL, S/O LATE SYED AMANULLA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
ALL RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT, NO.324, 1ST MAIN ROAD, NEW HARLAPUR, HARIHAR, DIST:DAVANAGERE.
G. BASAVARAJ S/O GOVINDAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, BIKE RIDER, KA-14-EF-0222, R/AT DOOR NO.156, KYARKATTE, TALUK: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: DAVANAGERE. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SWAMY SHIVA PRAKASH H., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R5 & R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.45/2015 ON THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,25,629/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, T.M.NADAF, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
- 3 -
MFA.No.112/2019
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the Insurer, calling in question the judgment and award dated 24.07.2018 in MVC.No.45/2015 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Harihara, (‘Tribunal’ for short) on quantum as well as contributory negligence.
Heard Madam Manjula N.Tejaswi, learned counsel for appellant and Sri.Swamy Shiva Prasad.H, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 though served remained unrepresented.
Madam Manjula with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal has committed serious error in deducting the income at 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. A perusal of the claim petition indicates that except wife, all the children are major and self-reliant and are not dependent on the income of deceased Syed Amanulla. In these circumstances, the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency required to be reduced appropriately. She further submits that the
- 4 -
MFA.No.112/2019
Tribunal has failed to consider the contributory negligence by the deceased to the accident, while answering Issue No.1. With these two grounds, Madam Manjula sought to allow the appeal and reduce the compensation.
Refuting the submission of Madam Manjula, Sri.Swamy Shiva Prakash with all vehemence submits that the Insurer has not led any evidence to substantiate its contention regarding contributory negligence. The insurer has not examined neither any independent witnesses nor the Investigating Officer to substantiate its contentions on contributory negligence. In these circumstances, as per the settled position of law, only on the self-serving statement stated in the statement of objection and now by means of contentions in the pleadings now in this appeal cannot stake its claim on contributory negligence.
So far as quantum is concerned, the claimants have filed income tax returns for three consecutive Assessment years. The Tribunal ought to have considered the aggregate income by combining three years which would be approximately nearly Rs.2,36,000/- and
- 5 -
MFA.No.112/2019
definitely more than Rs.1,95,050/- as taken by the Tribunal. Though the claimants are not in appeal, but under the Principles of just compensation, the claim for entitlement may be considered exercising power under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. Further, learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards filial consortium to other claimants, except awarding loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/-, to the wife. Further the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards 10% escalation on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads. With these, he sought to dismiss the appeal.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the appeal papers so also the trial Court records.
The only point that would arise for my consideration is: Whether the insurer has made out a case to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, either on the contributory negligence or on the quantum?
- 6 -
MFA.No.112/2019
My answer to the above point for consideration is in the Negative for the following: REASONS 9. Admittedly the claimants have produced income tax returns for three consecutive Assessment years and if all are combined and an aggregate income is taken, the same would come to Rs.2,36,000/-. In view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1, in case of death of a married person, the deduction towards personal expenses, would be at 1/3rd, though the other claimants are considered to be only legal representatives and not dependants. Even then, the compensation if re-determined with higher income supra and awarding compensation towards the filial consortium as well as 10% escalation, the same would nearly comes to more than Rs.14,25,629/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. So far as contributory negligence is concerned, in the absence of any evidence contrary to the claim of the
1 (2009) 6 SCC 121
- 7 -
MFA.No.112/2019
claimants, either by examining any independent witnesses or the Investigating Officer, the insurer only on its pleadings and now by arguments before this Court cannot stake a claim of contributory negligence on the deceased. The documents on record clearly shows that it is due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, the accident has occurred and there is no element of contributory negligence attributable to the deceased. In the circumstances on both grounds, the Insurer fails in this appeal. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. (iii) The appellant-insurer shall deposit the balance compensation amount along with accrued interest before the concerned Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
- 8 -
MFA.No.112/2019
(iv) The apportionment as well as disbursement by the Tribunal, is unaltered.
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
RR ct-vn