SMT JAYAMMA vs SRI SUNIL DAS B

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5980 OF 2015(MV-I)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6645 OF 2013(MV-D)

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9729 OF 2013(MV-D)

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2956 OF 2014(MV-D)

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2957 OF 2014(MV-D)

IN MFA No. 5980/2015

BETWEEN:

SRI SUNIL DAS B.,
S/O SHASHI SHEKAR BHAT B,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT 741, DEVIDAS KRUPA,
PEENYA, BANGALORE - 560 058.

…APPELLANT





(BY SRI MANOJ K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
SIGN
AND:

1. THE MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
D.NO.13, YATHIRAJ MUTT BUILDING,
ST ND
NO.199, 1 FLOOR, 2 MAIN,
TH
SAMPIGE ROAD, NEAR 11 CROSS,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 003.

2. R MANJUNATH
S/O RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO.57, II MAIN,
LAKSHMIDEVINAGAR,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-96

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI K.T.GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC
TH
NO.1816/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 13 ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE
JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.60,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A., FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.

IN MFA NO. 6645/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI SUNIL DAS B
S/O SHASHI SHEKAR BHAT B.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT 741, DEVIDAS KRUPA
PEENYA, BANGALORE - 560 058.

...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANOJ K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. THE MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
D.NO.13, YATHIRAJ MUTT
ST
BUILDING, NO.199, 1 FLOOR
ND
2 MAIN, SAMPIGE ROAD
TH
NEAR 11 CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003.

2. SMT. JAYAMMA SINCE DEAD RESP. NO.3
W/O LATE SHIVANNA IS TREATED AS HER LR

3. KUM.DHANALAKSHMI M S.,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



D/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

R/AT NO.68,
MANCHEGOWDANAPALYA
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

AND ALSO R/AT C/O NAGARAJU
NO.164, SHANKARANAGARA MAIN
ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
OPP. SYNDICATE BANK
BANGALORE - 560 086.

...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI MURULI PAWAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/C/O DATED 11.08.2026 LRs OF DECEASED R2 IS R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.97/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADHOC, DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-III (SESSIONS),
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,42,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

IN MFA NO. 9729/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.JAYAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
PETITIONER NO.1 SINCE DEAD
APPELLANT NO.2 IS ONLY LEGAL HEIR.

2. SMT.DHANALAKSHMI
D/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/A NO.68,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



MANCHEGOWDANAPALYA
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

...APPELLANTS
[BY MURULI PAWAR K., ADVOCATE FOR A2 (AB)]
AND:
1. SRI SUNIL DAS B.,
S/O SHASHI SHEKAR BHAT B.,
R/A NO.741, DEVIDAS KRUPA,
PEENYA, BANGALORE - 560 058.

2. THE MANAGER
M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
NO.13, YATHIRAJ MUTT BUILDING
ST ND
NO.199, 1 FLOOR, 2 MAIN,
TH
SAMPIGE ROAD, NEAR 11 CROSS
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003.

...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANOJ K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI K.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7.5.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.97/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-III,
(SESSIONS), BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO. 2956/2014
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL ISNRUANCE CO LTD.,
ETHIRAJ MUTT BUILDING
ST ND
NO.199, 1 FLOOR, 2 MAIN
TH
SAMPIGE ROAD, NEAR 11 CROSS
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003
REP BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015




...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHIKKARAMAIAH
S/O DODDAKENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

2. KEMPARAJAMMA
W/O CHIKKARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/A THOLASAMMA NILAYA
NO.367, NEAR KARNATAKA STORE
ST
PEENYA 1 STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 058.

3. SUNIL DAS B
S/O SHASHI SHEKAR BHAT B.,
NO.741, DEVIDAS KRUPA
PEENYA, BANGALORE - 560 058
(OWNER OF THE TEMPO).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SATHEESH H K., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI MANOJ K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED18.1.2014 PASSED IN MVC
TH
NO.8329/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 16 ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
TH
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 40 ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,00,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE
DATE OF PAYMENT.

IN MFA NO. 2957/2014
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
ETHIRAJ MUTT BUILDING
ST ND
NO.199, 1 FLOOR, 2 MAIN

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



TH
SAMPIGE ROAD, NEAR 11 CROSS
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003
REP BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JOHN ROSE
S/O LATE K PONNUPILLAI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

2. MARY STELL
S/O JOHN ROSE
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/A NO.9,
RANGAMMA BUILDING
100 FEET ROAD, OPP. E T D C BHAWAN
CHOKKASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 058.
BOTH ARE PERMANET R/A
ND
NO.56, 2 BLOCK, PEENYA,
BANGALORE NORTH.

3. SUNIL DAS B
S/O SHASHI SHEKAR BHAT B.,
NO.741, DEVIDAS KRUPA
PEENYA (OWNER FO THE TEMPO)
BANGALORE - 560 058.

...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
SRI MANOJ K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV. FOR R3)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED18.01.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1914/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, & XL ACMM, BANGALORE,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,64,000/- WITH INTEREST
@ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

ADMISSION
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR , THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015




CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 05.06.2015
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Small Causes
Court at Bengaluru (SCCH 15) in MVC no.1816/2014, MFA
5980/2015 is filed by owner. Likewise, challenging judgment
and award dated 07.05.2013 passed by Adhoc District and
Sessions Judge, FTC-III (Sessions), Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore, in MVC no.97/2011, MFA 6645/2013 is filed by
owner. Challenging judgment and award dated 7.5.2013
passed by Adhoc District and Sessions Judge, FTC-III
(Sessions), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in MVC
no.97/2011, MFA 9729/2013 is filed by claimants for
enhancement of compensation as well as liability. Challenging
common judgment and award dated 18.01.2014 passed by
MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-14) in MVC no.1914/2012 and MVC
no.8329/2011, MFAs 2956/2014 and 2957/2014 are filed by
insurer.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal as per claimants
are that at 6:30 pm on 18.06.2011, when Manjunath,

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



Nagendra, C Nagaraju and Johal were traveling in goods tempo
bearing no.KA-02-AA-88 on NH-4 near Kulavanahalli, its driver
drove it in rash and negligent manner, lost control over it and it
toppled on its left side. In accident, Manjunath sustained
grievous injuries, while Nagendra, C Nagaraju and Johal
sustained fatal injuries and died. Separate claim petitions were
filed. Under impugned judgment, awards were passed. In MVC
1816/2014, Tribunal assessed total compensation of
Rs.60,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. and held owner of tempo
to pay compensation. In MVC no.97/2011, Tribunal assessed
total compensation of Rs.3,42,500/- with interest at 6% p.a.,
dismissed claim petition against insurer and held owner liable
to pay compensation. In MVC 8329/2011 and 1914/2012,
Tribunal assessed compensation of Rs. 3 lakh and
Rs.2,64,000/- and held owner and insurer jointly and severally
liable to pay same. Aggrieved thereby present appeals are filed.
3. Sri Manoj K, learned counsel appearing for Hareesh
T Bhandary, advocate for appellant submitted that appeals
were on liability.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



4. In MFA no.5980/2015 it was submitted that only
reason assigned by tribunal for fastening liability on owner
instead of insurer was that at time of accident claimant was
gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. It was submitted that
merely on ground that 16 persons were traveling in goods
tempo, it presumed vehicle was not being used for
transportation of goods requiring loader/unloader and
erroneously assumed claimant boarded as gratuitous
passenger. It was submitted that at time of accident vehicle
was hired for ferrying of shamiyana and catering material which
would require loader/unloader. Therefore, fastening of liability
on owner in above circumstances would not be justified. It was
alternatively submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Saju P Paul and
Anr . reported in AIR 2013 SC 1064 as well as Manuara
Khatun and Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Ors. reported
in (2017) 4 SCC 796 had held that even in case of breach of
policy conditions insofar as third parties insurer was held liable
with liberty to thereafter recover compensation from insured.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



On above ground sought for allowing appeals and set aside
award against owner and refund amount in deposit.
5. Sri S Srishaila, learned counsel for respondent no.1
insurer would oppose appeal. It was submitted that tribunal
had assigned cogent reason for absolving liability of insurer.
Carriage of 16 persons in a goods tempo by itself would rule
out possibility of vehicle being used for carriage of goods. Same
would be fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy.
Under above circumstances, finding of tribunal on liability was
fully justified and sought for dismissal.
6. There is no representation on behalf of respondents
no.2 and 3.
7. Learned counsel submitted that even MFA
6645/2013 filed by owner was also on similar grounds and
adopted same contentions in other appeals.
8. Sri Vijay Kumar T, learned counsel appearing for
claimant in MFA no.2957/2014 would submit that though claim
petition was under Section 163A, tribunal erred in applying
multiplier corresponding age of claimant's mother instead of

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



age of victim Johal at 23 years attracting multiplier of '18' and
submitted that this Court had jurisdiction to modify award on
ground that 'just compensation' was not awarded.
9. It was further submitted that in case of gratuitous
passengers also Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amudavalli V.
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in ( 2025
INSC 1219 ) had held insurer liable to pay compensation in
case of accident occurring with claimants being gratuitous
passengers. Therefore, prayer for an order of pay and recovery
would not be sustainable.
10. MFA 9729/2013 is for enhancement of
compensation, firstly, on ground that deceased Nagendra aged
27 years had stated to be earning more than Rs.10,000/- p.m.
but tribunal had considered income notionally at Rs.3,750/-
which was grossly inadequate and sought for enhancement.
And future prospects were required to be added to monthly
income. Even compensation awarded towards conventional
heads being lower.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



11. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment
and award and record.
12. From above and since owner and insurer are in
appeal challenging finding of tribunal on liability while claimant
is seeking for enhancement of compensation, points that arise
for consideration are:
i) Finding of tribunal on liability calls for
modification?
ii) Whether claimants in MVC 97/2011
were entitled for enhancement of
compensation?
Point no.1:
13. Occurrence of accident involving insured goods
tempo no.KA 02 AA 88 on 18.06.2011, claimant Manjunath
sustaining grievous injuries and Nagendra, C Nagaraju and
Johal sustaining fatal injuries are not in dispute. Issuance of
insurance policy current as on date of accident is also not in
dispute. Only dispute is about liability of insurer to reimburse
insured. In order to establish actionable negligence against
owners/insurers claimants relied on Police Investigation

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



Records, namely, FIRs, mahazar, rough sketch, Motor Vehicle
Inspector's report and charge sheet marked as Exs.P1 to P5
and P7 respectively. Perusal of Ex.P1/P2 would indicate that
complaint was filed by one Pradeep s/o Chandrappa, wherein
he stated that on date of accident he along with his friends
went to Bylanjaneyaswamy temple in goods tempo and on
return journey, complainant along with his friends Anil, Tarun,
late Nagaraju, Manjunath s/o Rajanna, Arun, Shivakumar,
Sandeep, Raghavendra were traveling in cabin while remaining
were traveling in body of vehicle when said vehicle met with
accident. Despite claiming to be loader/unloader in goods
tempo, no corroborative material was placed on record by
injured claimant. In fact in his cross examination admission is
elicited that he had not stated about his avocation as loader
before police and there were no seats in tempo.
14. In MVC no.97/2011, claimant Jayamma had in fact
stated that her son Nagendra was traveling in vehicle as
assistant to cook Nagaraju. Above statements would establish
that claimant/victims were not traveling as loaders/unloaders in
goods vehicle, but as passengers. Since vehicle in question was

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



goods vehicle, claimant/victims would be gratuitous
passengers. In Saju Paul and Manuara Khatun 's cases
(supra) under similar circumstances Hon'ble Supreme Court
had held insurer liable to pay compensation to third party
claimant and thereafter seek reimbursement from insured.
Though learned counsel for insurer seeks to rely on
Amudavalli' s case (supra) by contending that decisions in
Saju Paul and Manuara Khatun 's cases (supra) were referred
and there was refusal to mulch liability on insurer by viewing
violation of terms and conditions of policy as fundamental, later
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamini Ben and Ors. v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and Ors. [SLP (Civil)
no.21802/2023] after referring to Amudavalli, Saju Paul
and Manuvara Khatun 's cases (supra) has held in case of
gratuitous passengers traveling in goods vehicle, insurer has to
satisfy award in first place and thereafter recover same from
insured. Decision in Amudavalli' s case (supra) was
distinguished by observing that Amudavalli was a case of
hiring of goods vehicle for travel as passenger vehicle. Point for
consideration is therefore answered partly in affirmative by

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



holding that insurer would be liable to pay compensation to
claimants in first place and thereafter recover it from insured
without need for separate proceedings.
Point no.2:
15. On quantum, victim Nagendra in MVC 97/2011 was
stated to be 27 years of age, working as cook/catering
supervisor and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. Tribunal assessed his
monthly income at Rs.125/- per day i.e., at Rs.3,750/- p.m.
notionally. Since accident occurred in year 2011 and notional
income of Rs.6,500/- has to be considered. Claimants are
mother and sister of deceased Nagendra. Since claimant was
below 40 years of age, self employed and bachelor, addition of
future prospects at 40%, deduction of personal expenses at
50% and correct multiplier of '17' would apply. Thus,
compensation towards loss of dependency would be
Rs.9,28,200 /-. In addition to above, claimants would be
entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium;
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate. Since more than six years have passed
after decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 20% has to
be added to said award towards escalation i.e., Rs.22,000/- .
Thus, total compensation would be Rs.10,60,200/- . Point
no.2 is answered accordingly.
16. In MFA 2957/2014, deceased Johal was 23 years of
age, working in tempo along with Nagaraju and claim petition
was filed under Section 163A. Tribunal considered his monthly
income at Rs.3,000/- and deducted 1/3rd towards personal
expenses, but applied multiplier of '13' corresponding to age of
claimant no.1 instead of '18' corresponding to age of deceased.
Application of incorrect multiplier would be contrary to law and
following decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surekha v.
Santosh reported in (2021) 16 SCC 467 for purpose of
awarding just compensation even in insurer's appeal without
claimant's appeal, compensation towards loss of dependency is
reworked and reassessed compensation in MVC no.1914/2012
would be Rs.4,31,956/- as against Rs.2,34,000/- awarded by
tribunal. Thus, there would be difference of Rs.1,97,956/- i.e.,
Rs.1,98,000/- . Point no.2 is answered accordingly.
17. Consequently, following:

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



ORDER
i) MFAs 5980/2015, 6645/2013 are allowed in part to
extent of holding insurer is liable to pay compensation to claim
in first place and thereafter recover award amount from
insured. Statutory amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to tribunal for payment.
ii) MFA 9729/2013 is allowed in part. Claimant held
entitled for reassessed compensation of Rs.10,60,200/- as
against Rs.3,42,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of
claim petition till deposit. Insurer to deposit enhanced
compensation before tribunal within six weeks. On deposit,
entire compensation to be released in favour of claimant.
Needless to state that insurer would be liable to pay enhanced
compensation with interest to claimant and thereafter recover it
from insured.
iii) MFAs 2956/2014 and 2957/2014 are allowed in part
to extent of holding insurer liable to pay compensation to
claimants in first place and thereafter entitled to recover
compensation from insured without need for separate
proceedings. Compensation in MFA 2957/2014 is enhanced by

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57731
MFA No. 5980 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6645 of 2013
MFA No. 9729 of 2013
AND 2 OTHERS


CNR: KAHC010372732015



further sum of Rs.1,98,000/- . Amount in deposit is ordered to
be transmitted to tribunal. Balance compensation to be
deposited by insurer within six weeks. On deposit, entire
compensation is ordered to be released in favour of claimants.


Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE


YKL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26