SMT P B JAYANTHI vs SRI SHASHI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 37 OF 2025 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. P.B.JAYANTHI
W/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
2. P.B.NITHIN
S/O LATE P.B.BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
3. ASHIKA.P.B.
D/O LATE P.B.BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KOLAGADALU VILLAGE,
CHERAMBANE POST,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
…CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. BIPIN.B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SHASHI
S/O RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O KOLAGADALU VILLAGE,
CHERAMBANE POST,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
Digitally signed
by JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
2. SRI. RAJAN B.S,
S/O SANJEEVA.B.G.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O KOLAGADALU VILLAGE,
CHERAMBANE POST,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
3. THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
ST
BLOCK NO 16, 1 FLOOR,
SURAKSHA MEDICAL, G.T.ROAD,
MADIKERI, KODAGU-571 201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK.N.PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 & R2-SERVED)
*
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 R/W
SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 09.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 99/2016ON
THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KODAGU MADIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
1. The learned counsel for the cross objectors, at the
outset, submits that the notice in the appeal [MFA
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
No.4726/2019] was received by the cross objectors only
on 09.04.2025 and thereafter, within a month, i.e., on
16.04.2025, the cross objection has been filed. Thus, he
submits that the cross objection filed is within time.
1.1 The learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimant
also drew the attention of the Court to the provision of
Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”], which reads as
follows:
“22. Upon hearing, respondent may object to decree
as if he had preferred separate appeal.- (1) Any
respondent, though he may not have appealed from any
part of the decree, may not only support the decree but
may also state that the finding against him in the
Court below in respect of any issue ought to have
been in his favour; and may also take any cross-
objection to the decree which he could have taken
by way of appeal, provided he has filed such
objection in the Appellant Court within one month
from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice
of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such
further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow.
Explanation.- A respondent aggrieved by a finding of
the Court in the judgment on which the decree
appealed against is based may, under this rule, file
cross-objection in respect of the decree in so far as it
is based on that finding, notwithstanding that by reason of
the decision of the Court on any other finding which is
sufficient for the decision of the suit, the decree, is, wholly
or in part, in favour of that respondent.
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
(2) Form of objection and provisions applicable
thereto- Such cross-objection shall be in the form of a
memorandum, and the provisions of Rule 1, so far as they
relate to the form and contents of the memorandum of
appeal, shall apply thereto.
[(3) ] - omitted
(4) Where, in any case in which any respondent has
under this rule filed a memorandum of objection,
the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for
default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be heard
and determined after such notice to the other parties as
the Court thinks fit.
(5) The provisions-relating to pauper appeals shall, so far
as they can be made applicable, apply to an objection
under this rule.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
2. This Court has examined the record. The record
reflects that the cross objectors/claimants were served in
the appeal [MFA No.4726/2019] on 09.04.2025, although
respondent No.3/Insurance Company had challenged the
appeal in the year 2019. The cross objectors/claimants
have filed the cross objection on 16.04.2025. Accordingly,
and in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC, the cross
objection filed by the cross objectors/ claimants is in-time.
3. The present Cross Objection has been filed seeking
to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 09.04.2019 in
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
M.V.C.No.99/2016, passed by the learned Principal District
Judge and M.A.C.T. at Kodagu-Madikeri, [hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’]. B y the Impugned
Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to
the cross objectors/claimants in a sum of Rs.7,74,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of petition till its realisation.
4. Although the present matter is listed for Orders on
I.A.No.1/2025 for additional documents, with the consent
of the parties, it is taken up for hearing and disposal
today.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the cross objectors/
claimants and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Even though the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served, they have remained
un-represented.
6. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 13.02.2016
at about 7:20 p.m., when the deceased was coming on his
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-12/E-3190 from
Kopatti to Cherambane on his side slowly, at that time,
the driver of Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-
12/A-5873 while driving the same at a high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed the Motor Cycle of the
deceased near the shop of Thotlu Kunjila Hamsa at
Cherambane. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained
grievous injuries to his head and also vital parts of the
body. He was immediately taken to the Government
Hospital, but, he succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital.
7. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the
M.V. Act’] by the wife and two children of the deceased. It
was stated in the claim petition that on account of the
death of the deceased, they have lost the sole earning
member of the family, who was a businessman and an
agriculturist, having landed property and earning a
monthly income of Rs.50,000/-.
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
7.1 On notice of the claim petition, all the respondents
appeared through their respective counsels. The
respondents No.1 and 2/Owner and Insurer of the
offending vehicle filed their objections, contending that the
accident has occurred on account of the negligent driving
of the deceased. Further, they contended that since the
Autorickshaw was covered by an insurance Policy, which
was in force, they are not liable to pay any compensation
to the claimants. The respondent No.3/ Insurance
Company also filed its objections, contending that the
accident has occurred only due to the negligence of the
deceased and that he had no valid and an effective Driving
Licence to ride the said vehicle. It is further contended by
them that since the respondent No.1/driver of the
Autorickshaw was not holding a valid and an effective
Driving Licence to drive the said vehicle, as such, the
owner has violated the conditions of the Insurance Policy.
Hence, it is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed
to dismiss the claim petition.
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
8. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties, the
following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:
ISSUES
“1. Whether the petitioners prove that, on 13/02/2016
at about 7.20 p.m., deceased P.B. Basappa was going
on his Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No:KA-12-E-3190
from Kopatti village towards Cherambane and when
he reached near the shop of Hamsa at thotlu Kunhi of
Cherambane, an Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg.No:KA-
12-A-5873 driven by respondent-1 came from
opposite side in a rash and negligent manner with
high speed and dashed against the motor cycle and as
a result, P.B. Basappa sustained grievous injuries on
his head and died in the hospital?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled
to compensation for the death of P.B. Basappa as
prayed in the petition, if so, to what extent and from
whom?
3. What order or award?”
9. The cross-objectors/claimants examined the wife of
the deceased as PW-1, who got marked certified copies of
the FIR (Ex.P-1), complaint (Ex.P-2), spot mahazar
(Ex.P-3), inquest mahazar (Ex.P-4), inquest report
(Ex.P-5), business licence (Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7), tax receipt
(Ex.P-8) and RTC extracts (Exs.P-9-13). On behalf of
respondents, three witnesses were examined, viz.
8
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
Smt. Jayamma (RW-1), Shashi (RW-2) and Ranjan B.S.
(RW-3) and marked four documents from Exs.R-1 to R-4.
10. The learned Tribunal, based on the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, found that the
respondent No.1/driver of the offending Autorickshaw did
not possess a valid and an effective Driving Licence to
drive the said vehicle as on the date of the accident.
Relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
1
Singh Ram Vs. Nirmala and others , the learned
Tribunal also held that the respondent No.2/owner of the
Autorickshaw was negligent in handing over the vehicle to
respondent No.1/driver. However, it directed the
respondent No.3/Insurance Company to pay the
compensation and thereafter recover the same from the
respondent No.2/owner of the offending Autorickshaw.
11. So far as concerns the compensation, the learned
Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency assessing the
income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month and
1
Civil Appeal No.2103/2018 dt.06.03.2018
9
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
rd
deducting 1/3 towards the personal and living expenses
of the deceased. Since the deceased was aged about 53
years, the multiplier of ‘11’ was applied. Accordingly,
applying the judgments in the case of Sarla Verma
(Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
2
and another and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
3
Pranay Sethi , the ‘loss of dependency’ was calculated
as follows:
rd
Rs.8,000 x12=96,000/- 1/3 (32,000/-) x ‘11’ =
Rs.7,04,000/-
11.1 The Tribunal also awarded amounts towards ‘loss of
estate’, loss of consortium and love and affection and
funeral expenses in the following manner:
Sl.
No.
Heads of Compensation Amount
(in Rs.)
1 Loss of Dependency 7,04,000/-
2 Loss to Estate 15,000/-
3 Loss of Consortium and love and 40,000/-
affection
4 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
TOTAL 7,74,000/-
2
(2009) 6 SCC 121
3
(2017) 16 SCC 680
10
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
11.2 The learned Tribunal thus awarded a sum of
Rs.7,74,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum.
12. The learned counsel for the cross objectors/
claimants submits that his challenge is only on two
grounds. Firstly, he submitted that, since the accident is of
the year 2016, the learned Tribunal ought to have
assessed the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.9,500/- per month, as per the Notional Income Chart
prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,
Bengaluru (KSLSA) and also made an addition of 10% for
future prospects as per the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi case. Secondly, he submitted that
as per the very same Pranay Sethi judgment, the learned
Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of consortium/loss of love and affection, to
each cross objector/claimant.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3/
Insurance Company submits that the interest awarded by
11
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
the learned Tribunal was too high and requires to be
reduced.
14. This Court has examined the record. It is undisputed
that the accident took place on 13.02.2016 and as per the
Notional Income Chart, the income is fixed at Rs.9,500/-
per month for the year 2016. The learned Tribunal has
rd
deducted 1/3 towards the living and personal expenses
of the deceased, which is accepted. Considering the age of
the deceased (53 years), the learned Tribunal has applied
the multiplier of ‘11’, which is just and proper and the
same is accepted. As per the ratio of law laid down in
Pranay Sethi case, however, 10% is required to be added
as future prospects, if the deceased was a businessman
and aged 50 to 60 years. Thus, the loss of dependency
would require to be re-calculated as follows:
Rs.9,500/-(+)10%=10,450/-
10,450/- x 2/3 x12x’11’ = 9,19,600/-
15. So far as concerns the compensation towards loss of
consortium/loss of love and affection, the learned Tribunal
12
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
has awarded only a sum of Rs.40,000/-. However, in view
of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay
Sethi case, loss of consortium is payable at Rs.40,000/-
each, to the three cross objectors/claimants totalling to
Rs.1,20,000/-.
16. This Court agrees with the submission of the learned
counsel for the parties that no escalation has been
awarded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, escalation
at the rate of 30%, i.e. @ 10% for every three years
(from the year 2016) is awarded on the conventional
heads of compensation. Thus, the revised calculation of
compensation would be as follows :
Sl.
No.
Particulars Amount
(Rs.)
1 Loss of Dependency
[Rs.9,500/-(+)10%=10,450/-
10,450/- x 2/3 x12x’11’]
9,19,600/-
2 Funeral Expenses
[Rs.15,000/-(+)30%]
19,500/-
3 Loss of Estate
[Rs.15,000/-(+)30%]
19,500/-
4 Loss of Consortium
[Rs.40,000/-x3 (+)30%]
1,56,000/-
TOTAL 11,14,600/-
13
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
Less: Awarded by the Tribunal 7,74,000/-
Enhanced compensation 3,40,600/-
17. Hence, the cross objectors/claimants are entitled to
an enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.3,40,600/-
along with interest at 9% per annum as awarded by the
learned Tribunal, from the date of petition till its
realization.
18. On the aspect of the interest awarded by the learned
Tribunal, this Court, has, in a recent judgment captioned
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sri. Malyadri. M
4
And Others , after analyzing the precedents of the
Supreme Court and this Court, found that an award of 9%
interest is in accordance with the settled provisions in the
present-day scenario, especially in cases of death and
permanent disability. It was held that the award of 9%
interest has been regularly upheld by the Supreme Court.
It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of the
judgment below:
4
2026 SCC Online Kar 4090
14
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
“24. Thus, an analysis of the precedents shows that the
award of interest over the last 5-10 years has infact
consistently been awarded @ 9% p.a. or upholding
such an award.
xxx xxx xxx
29. An analysis of the aforegoing discussions of the
Supreme Court , reflects that the Supreme Court has
consistently held that the award of interest is
intended to recompensate the claimant for being
deprived of the use of money, which ought to have
been paid at the time of occurrence of the accident .
The rate of interest, therefore, must be just, fair and
reasonable, having regard to the prevailing economic
conditions and bank rates.
29.1. The award of interest is usually determined at
the prevailing bank rate of interest on a case-to-
case basis and at the rate which is just and fair and
reasonable.
29.2 T here cannot be any ‘straitjacket formula’ in
determining the rate of interest and that the same
must depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. The guiding principle remains that the rate
must neither be punitive nor non-existent but must
strike a balance between fairness to the claimant
and reasonableness to the insurer.
29.3 The rate of interest 9% is more appropriate in
case involving death and serious injury especially,
where there is a long delay in the claimants
receiving the compensation.
30. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year
2016 leading to the death of the wife of respondent No.1
and mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The award came
to be passed in the year 2018. The learned Tribunal
has deemed it apposite to award interest on the
compensation @ 9% per annum. The award of
interest is not punitive as is fair considering the
prevailing economic condition and bank rates. In
addition, it is now 10 years since the date of the
accident.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
15
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
18.1 The aforesaid view has been considered and affirmed
by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment
captioned Bimal Gogai and Another vs. The Managing
Director, Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport
5
Corporation , wherein the award of interest at 9% per
annum, particularly in cases involving death and
permanent disability has been directed.
19. In the present case, it was the death of a person,
who was a businessman aged about 53 years and the
claim petition has been filed by his wife and two children.
Accordingly, and in terms of the judgments of the
Supreme Court as well as this Court, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by
the learned Tribunal in the Impugned Award.
20. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The cross objection is allowed in-part;
5
MFA No.10401/2018 c/w MFA No.5507/2018, dt.09.06.2026
16
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 09.04.2019,
in M.V.C. No.99/2016, passed by the learned
Principal District Judge and M.A.C.T at Kodagu-
Madikeri, is modified, enhancing the
compensation by Rs.3,40,600/- along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum as awarded
by the learned Tribunal from the date of petition
till realization;
(iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned
Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed;
(iv) The respondent No.3/Insurance company is
directed to pay the entire compensation with
interest as awarded by the Tribunal within eight
weeks from today and thereafter recover the
same from the respondent No.2/owner of the
offending vehicle, in accordance with law;
(v) On deposit of such compensation, the same
shall be released in favour of the cross objectors/
claimants, in the same proportion as ordered by
17
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53716
MFA.CROB No. 37 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010267662025
the learned Tribunal, on filing of an appropriate
application;
(vi) All pending applications shall stand closed.
(vii) No order as to costs;
(viii) The Registry is directed to draw the
modified Award accordingly;
(ix) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of
this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.
Digitally signed by TARA
VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
BMV*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47.1
18