THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD vs SMT SAROJAMMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60066
MFA No. 8509 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010450812017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8509 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
BAGALUR MANSION, 2ND FLOOR,
DODDAPETE, KOLAR - 563 101.
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO B.C, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.C. SEETHA RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SAROJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAMANJI @ RAMANJAPPA,
2. KUM. ASHWINI
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
D/O LATE RAMANJI @ RAMANJAPPA,
3. KUM. AISHWARYA
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
D/O LATE RAMANJI @ RAMANJAPPA,
Digitally signed
by ASHWINI
MAYAPPA
MAVARAKAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60066
MFA No. 8509 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010450812017
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS.
REP. BY HER MOTHER FIRST
RESPONDENT HEREIN.
4. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
W/O LATE PAPANNA,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
CHIKKA ANKADAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
5. SRI. K.R. RAMA REDDY
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDENT OF KARADAGUR VILLAGE,
SRINIVAS SANDRA POST,
VIA: OORGAUMPET, ROBERTSONPET,
KGF, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
(OWNER OF BUS NO.KA.08/6219)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R4;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 04.08.2025, R5 IS PLACED
EX-PARTE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.532/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & J.M.F.C., & MACT., KGF. AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS. 24,40,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60066
MFA No. 8509 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010450812017
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 22.07.2017
passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & MACT, K.G.F.
( Tribunal ) in M.V.C.no.532/2015, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Anup Seetharam Rao, learned counsel appearing
for Sri B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by insurer challenging finding of
tribunal on liability as well as on quantum.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal as per claimant are
that at 7:30 p.m. on 22.08.2015, when Ramanji @
Ramanjappa was walking towards his village by side of Kolar-
Bangarpet road, driver of bus no.KA-08/6219 drove it in rash
and negligent manner and dashed against Ramanjappa. In said
accident, Ramanjappa sustained grievous injuries and despite
treatment at R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, and Primus Hospital,
Bengaluru, he died on 23.08.2015 at Government Hospital,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60066
MFA No. 8509 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010450812017
Bangarpet. Alleging loss of dependency on account of untimely
death his wife, children and mother filed claim petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( MV Act ) against
owner and insurer of bus.
4. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all grounds including violation of terms and conditions of policy
by insured, tribunal framed following issues and recorded
evidence:
i. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased
Ramanji @ Ramanjappa, is the victim of the motor
vehicle accident caused by the private bus bearing
reg.no.KA-08-6219 on 22.08.2015 and succumbed
to the injuries as pleaded in the petition?
ii. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, from whom and to what amount?
iii. Whether the respondent no.2 proves that petition is
not maintainable as pleaded in its objection?
iv. To what order?
5. Claimant no.1 deposed as PW1 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P15. Insurer examined ARTO as RW.1 and got
marked Exs.R1 to R6.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60066
MFA No. 8509 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010450812017
6. On consideration, tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle
leading to death of Ramanjappa and claimants being entitled
for compensation assessed by it, at Rs.24,40,000/- with 9%
interest per annum. Aggrieved by same, Appeal was filed.
7. It was submitted that insurer had examined ARTO
as RW1 and got marked RC and permit issued to respondents
no.4 and 5. Ex.R5 would indicate validility of permit was from
04.11.2006 to 03.11.2011 and establish that as on date of
accident i.e., on 22.08.2015 permit had expired and not
renewed. This would absolve liability of insurer.
8. On quantum, it was submitted that though
claimants had stated that deceased was 38 years of age and
earning Rs.15,000/- per month as painter, Ex.P9 voter ID of
deceased would indicate his age as 41 years. Consequently,
addition of future prospects at 50% and application of multiplier
of '15' had led to excessive award.
9. It was further submitted that award of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant no.1
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60066
MFA No. 8509 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010450812017
Rs.1,00,000/- to each of claimants no.2 and 3 towards loss of
love and affection and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love of love
and affection to claimant no.4 were grossly excessive and
unsustainable. Even award of rate of interest at 9% was
excessive and sought for reduction. On said ground sought for
allowing appeal.
10. On other hand, Sri N. Gopal Krishna, learned
counsel for claimant opposed appeal. It was submitted that
tribunal had determined age by referring to age mentioned in
Ex.P7 PM report. It was fairly conceded that addition of 50%
towards future prospects would be excessive and conceded for
reduction to 40%. It was also submitted that multiplier applied
was proper. On said grounds, sought for dismissal.
11. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment
and award and record.
12. From above, since this appeal is by insurer on
liability as well as quantum, points that would arise for
consideration are:
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60066
MFA No. 8509 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010450812017
i. Whether tribunal was justified in holding insurer
liable to pay compensation?
ii. Whether compensation assessed by tribunal was
excessive and calls for reduction?
REASONS
Point no.i :
13. At outset, there is no dispute about occurrence of
accident involving insured vehicle leading to death of
Ramanjappa and claimants being entitled for compensation.
Finding of tribunal on liability challenged is that as per Ex.R5
permit of insured vehicle had expired. To substantiate same,
respondent has examined ARTO and produced permit extract as
Exs.R5. Ex.R5 discloses that permit was valid from 04.11.2006
to 03.11.2011. Accident occurred on 22.08.2015. Therefore,
insured vehicle was being plied without permit. However, on
said ground alone, insurer cannot avoid liability against
claimants, who is a third party. At best, insurer would have to
pay compensation to third party claimants and thereafter
recover it from insured. Point no.(i) is answered partly in
affirmative, as above.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60066
MFA No. 8509 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010450812017
Point no.ii :
14. Claimants stated that deceased was 38 years of
age, by producing PM report and election voter ID card. While
passing impugned award, tribunal assessed compensation by
considering age as per PM report. Normally resort to age
mentioned in PM report or medical records would be justified in
absence of specific documents about age.
15. In instant case, claimants themselves have
produced voter ID of deceased as Ex.P9 which would indicate
year of birth of deceased as 1974 and that deceased was 41
years of age as on date of accident. As held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi and Others , reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, in
case of deceased being self-employed and aged between 40
and 50 years, addition of future prospects would have to be at
25% and multiplier applicable would be '14'. Deduction towards
personal expenses would have to be at '¼'. Though claimants
had stated that they did not produce any proof about income,
in absence tribunal assessed it notionally at Rs.10,000/-, but
notional income for year 2015 being Rs.9,000/- per month,
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60066
MFA No. 8509 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010450812017
tribunal would not be justified in taken it at Rs.10,000/- per
month. Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency would
have to be re-computed as follows-
(Rs.9,000/- + 25%) x 12 x 14 x 3/4 = Rs.14,17,500/-
16. Apart from above, claimants would be entitled to
compensation under conventional heads at Rs.40,000/- each
towards spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial
consortium i.e., Rs.1,60,000/-. They would also be entitled to
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate i.e., Rs.1,90,000/-.
17. Since more than six years have lapsed after
decision in Pranay Sethi's case ( supra ), escalation of 20% has
to be added to award under conventional heads i.e.,
Rs.38,000/-. Since Ramanjappa died during treatment,
tribunal has awarded Rs.35,018/- towards medical expenses,
which would also sustain. Thus, claimants would be entitled to
total compensation of Rs.16,80,518/- .
18. Though learned counsel for insurer has sought to
contend that rate of interest awarded at 9% is excessive,
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60066
MFA No. 8509 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010450812017
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been consistently awarding interest
at 9% per annum. Therefore, there would be no scope for
reduction. Consequently, point no.ii is answered partly in
affirmative, as above.
19. Consequently, following -
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part , judgment and award dated
22.07.2017 passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC
& MACT, K.G.F. in M.V.C.no.532/2015 is modified.
ii. Claimants are held entitled for total compensation of
Rs.16,80,518/- with interest at 9% per annum from
date of claim petition till deposit.
iii. Ratio of apportionment of compensation between
claimants by tribunal is sustained.
iv. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to
tribunal for disbursal.
v. Respondent-insurer is directed to deposit balance
compensation before tribunal within six weeks.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60066
MFA No. 8509 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010450812017
vi. On deposit, entire compensation apportioned in favour
of claimants is ordered to be released.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
HNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8