MRS. MARIAMMA vs IFFCO TOKIO INSURANCE CO LTD.,

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54305
MFA No. 7194 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010227142019



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7194 OF 2019 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1.
MRS. MARIAMMA
W/O LATE ABDUL SALAM,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

2.
MOHAMMED NIYAD
S/O LATE ABDUL SALAM,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

3.
KATHIJA NEHAMA
D/O LATE ABDUL SALAM,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

4. IBRAHIM NAUSHEEN
S/O LATE ABDUL SALAM,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: H.NO.3-135R,
VAMNJOOR MASZID COMPOUND,
SOMESHWARA UCHILA,
THIRUVAIL VILLAGE,
MANGALURU TALUK.

…APPELLANTS
Digitally
signed by JAI
JYOTHI J
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. IFFCO TOKIO INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RD
BRANCH: NO.8, 3 FLOOR,
1

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54305
MFA No. 7194 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010227142019


KSCMF BLDG.,
NEXT TO HOTEL CHANDRIKA,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 052,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

2. MR. IBRAHIM
S/O ABDUL KHADER,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: KATTEPUNI HOUSE,
KALLAPU,
PERMANNUR VILLAGE,
MANGALORE.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. LINGARAJ H.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED:11.03.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS
DISPENSED WITH)


THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.09.2018 IN
MVC NO.791/2012 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MANGALURU, D.K., AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY GRANTING
THE COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking to
challenge Judgment and Award dated 27.09.2018 passed
2

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54305
MFA No. 7194 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010227142019


in MVC.No.791/2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal and III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru,
D.K. [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”].

2. By the Impugned award, the claim petition has been
allowed and a sum of Rs.10,10,000/- has been granted
along with interest at 6% per annum to the
appellants/claimants.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 18.03.2012
at about 2.20 p.m., when the deceased Abdul Salam was
proceeding on a motorcycle as a pillion rider bearing
registration No. KA-19-X-2106, at that time, an Alto car
bearing registration No. KA-19-Z-2594 hit the motorcycle
on which the deceased was travelling. The deceased
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries
at the hospital.

4. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the
3

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54305
MFA No. 7194 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010227142019


‘MV Act’] by the family of the deceased i.e., the wife and
the children of the deceased before the Tribunal.

5. It was contended that the deceased was working as a
supervisor and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The claim
was contested by respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
Respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle, although
served, failed to appear and was proceeded against ex-
parte by the Tribunal.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:
"1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Abdul
Salam, S/o Ahammad, Sustained injuries in accident said
to have been occurred on 18.3.2012 at about 2.20 p.m on
N.H-48 at Brahmarakootul, Thumbe Village, Bantwal
Taluk and within the limits of Bantwal Rural P.S and
thereby succumbed to those injuries in the hospital, due
to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of a Alto
car bearing Registration No.KA-19-F-2910?

2. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that accident
occurred due to rash and negligence of rider of the motor
cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-19-X-2106?

3. Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitle for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom
they are entitled to?

4

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54305
MFA No. 7194 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010227142019


4. To what decree or order?

7. The four claim petitions relating to the accident
were clubbed and heard together. The appellant/claimant
being the wife of the deceased was examined as PW5 and
the Doctor who had treated the appellant claimant was
examined as PW4 and relied upon 28 documents, which
were marked as Exhibits P1 to P28, including Complaint
with FIR (Exhibit-P1), Notice (Exhibit-P2), Spot Mahazar
(Exhibit-P3), Charge sheet (Exhibit-P4), and other
documents.

7.1 The respondent examined their Area Manager as RW2
and also relied on five documents which were exhibited as
Exhibits R1 to R5, which included the Reply to the notice
(Exhibit-R1), Authorization Letter (Exhibit-R2), Insurance
Policy (Exhibit-R3), Rough sketch (Exhibit-R4) and Notice
under Section 133 of IMV Act (Exhibit-R5).

8. Based on the examination of the evidence, the
learned Tribunal found that there was no serious dispute
5

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54305
MFA No. 7194 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010227142019


regarding the occurrence of the accident and the
negligence. The Tribunal, on finding that the FIR had been
registered by the Jurisdictional Police and that the charge
sheet had been filed, held that this was prima facie
evidence to prove rash and negligent driving. In addition,
relying on the spot mahazar (Exhibit-P3) and the IMV
Report (Exhibit-P19), the Tribunal also held that the same
corroborated the occurrence of the accident.

9. On the compensation awarded, the learned Tribunal
found that the deceased was aged 43 years and was
working as a supervisor. Although, to prove the income of
the deceased, the claimants examined the employer of the
deceased as PW6, there was no direct evidence to
establish the earnings of the deceased. Since there were
no material documents produced to prove the income, the
Tribunal took the income at the notional income of
Rs.9,000/- per month.

6

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54305
MFA No. 7194 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010227142019


10. In addition, in order to calculate the loss of
dependency, future prospects at 25% were added to the
income. However, the Tribunal deducted one-half [1/2] of
the income towards personal expenses and applying a
multiplier of '14', awarded compensation for 'loss of
dependency' as follows:
9,000+25% = 11,250-1/2 = 5,625x12x14= Rs.9,45,000/-.

11. In addition, amounts were awarded towards
transport and funeral expenses; towards loss of
consortium; towards love and affection; and forloss of
estate. Accordingly, the following amounts were awarded
by the learned Tribunal:

Sl.No Particulars Amount
(Rs.)
1 Loss of Dependency 9,45,000/-
2 Transportation of dead body
and performance of obsequies 15,000/-
ceremony
3 Loss of consortium 15,000/-
4 Loss of love and affection 20,000/-
7

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54305
MFA No. 7194 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010227142019


5 Loss of estate 15,000/-
Total 10,10,000/-

12. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has
raised three contentions. Firstly, he submits that, while
calculating the loss of dependency, the deduction was
wrongly taken as one-half [1/2], since there were four
dependants. Secondly, he submits that the loss of
consortium was also not awarded in accordance with the
judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
1
Sethi . Lastly, it is contended that the medical expenses,
which were incurred at actuals and proved by Exhibit-P23,
were inadvertently left out.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance
Company, on the other hand, submits that the Impugned
Award does not suffer from any infirmity. However, he

1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
8

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54305
MFA No. 7194 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010227142019


admits that the medical bills amounting to Rs.29,492/-
were produced and marked as Exhibit-P23.

14. This Court has examined the record. It is not
disputed that the deceased had four dependants. Thus,
the deduction of one-half [1/2] towards personal expenses
could not have been made. The deduction was required to
be made at one-fourth [1/4th]. Given the age of the
deceased at 43 years, future prospects were also required
to be calculated at 25%. Accordingly, the loss of
dependency would be recalculated as follows:

Heads Amounts
Loss of dependency Rs.9,000 + 25% = 11,250/-
Rs.11,250x12x3/4x14
14,17,500/-
=

15. Further, in view of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, loss of consortium
is payable at Rs.40,000/- to four claimants, amounting to
Rs.1,60,000/- along with 20% escalation. The claimants
are also entitled to compensation under the conventional
9

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54305
MFA No. 7194 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010227142019


heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral expenses are
awarded. To this extent, the award of the Tribunal
requires to be recalculated in the following terms:

Sl.No. Particulars Amount
(Rs.)

1 Loss of Dependency


14,17,500/-
2 Loss of Consortium 1,92,000/-


3 Loss of Estate 18,000/-

4 Funeral Expenses 18,000/-
5 Medical Expenses 29,492/-
Total 16,74,992/-

16. Hence, the appellants/claimants are entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.16,74,992/- along with interest
at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization.

17. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;

10

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54305
MFA No. 7194 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010227142019


(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 27.09.2018, in
MVC No.791/2012, passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal and III Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Mangaluru, D.K., is modified by awarding a total
compensation of Rs.16,74,992/- along with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition
till realization.

(iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of
the Tribunal remains undisturbed.

(iv) The respondent/Insurance company is directed to
pay the enhanced compensation with interest as
awarded by the Tribunal within eight weeks from
today.
(v) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall
be released in favour of the appellants/claimants, on
filing of an appropriate application for withdrawal of
the enhanced amount.

11

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54305
MFA No. 7194 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010227142019


(vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified
Award accordingly.


(vii) The Registry is directed transmit the amount in
deposit along with a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Tribunal, along with its records for
disbursal.

(viii) No order as to costs. All pending application(s)
stand closed.

Digitally signed by TARA
VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA

Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE

AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

12