THE BRANCH MANAGER vs SMT SHEELA SHETTY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
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. 3880 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
SURATHKAL BRANCH, SURATHKAL,
MANGALORE TALUK,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.M.VENKATESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHEELA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
W/O LATE SADANANDA SHETTY,
2. SRI. AMAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
S/O LATE SADANANDA SHETTY,
3. SRI. ARUN SADANANDA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
S/O LATE SADANANDA SHETTY,
ALL ARE R/AT
OMBHATHOKLU BAILU MANE,
SHIVAPURA POST AND VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK-576 112.
4. DEVADAS UDUPA
S/O LATE DAMODHAR UDUPA,
Digitally signed by
JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
H.NO.1-105,
KEMBRAL POST AND VILLAGE,
VIA HALEYANGADY, MANGALORE TALUK.
5. SMT. ANUSHREE
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
W/O K.GANESH RAO,
LAXMI VASUDEVA, AGRAHARA,
HOUSE NO.66, THALIPADY VILLAGE,
KINNIGOLI, MANGALORE-574 150.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHRIDEVI SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3;
SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22/02/2019, PASSED IN MVC
NO.818/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
AMACT, KARKALA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.13,01,600/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A., FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
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 is by the appellant/Insurance
Company challenging the Judgment and Award dated
22.02.2019, passed in MVC No.818/2018 by the Senior Civil
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
Judge & AMACT, Karkala (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the learned
Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants in a
sum of Rs.13,01,600/-, along with interest at the rate of
8% per annum from the date of the petition till its
realisation.
2. Briefly, the relevant facts are that on 21.03.2018, the
deceased was walking on the Karkala-Hebri State Highway
along with his wife. At that time, one Maruthi Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-MG-5266 coming from the opposite
direction stated to being driven in a rash and negligent
manner, hit the deceased. As a result thereof, the deceased
died on the spot and his body was shifted to Government
General Hospital, Karkala for postmortem.
2.1 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 children of the deceased. It was
stated therein that the claimants have spent money on
postmortem and other conveyance charges. It was also
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
stated that the deceased was earning Rs.45,000/- per
month.
2.2. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance
Company as well as the owner of the offending vehicle. The
owner of the offending vehicle stated that he was not liable
to pay compensation as the vehicle was covered under the
insurance policy of respondent No.3/Insurance
Company(therein). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (therein)
contested the petition. The Insurance Company filed its
written statement denying the averments in the petition.
However, it is admitted that the offending vehicle was
insured.
3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed:
“ 1. Whether the petitioners prove that Sadananda Shetty
- the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner
No.2 and 3 died in a Motor Vehicle Accident on 21-03-2018
at 5.20 p.m., in front of Varanga Society at Varanga Town,
due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi Car bearing
Reg. No.KA-03-MG-5266 by its driver as contended?
2. Whether the respondent No.3 proves that the driver of
Maruthi Car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-MG-5266 was not
holding valid and effective driving licence at the relevant
time of accident?
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the
compensation amount, if so what is the amount and from
whom it is recoverable?
4. What Order or Award?”
4. In order to prove their averments, the petitioner
No.1, wife of the deceased was examined as PW1. Exhibits
P1 to P18 were marked on behalf of the petitioners being
Ex.P1 (FIR), Ex.P2 (complaint), Ex.P3 (spot and seizure
Mahazar), Ex.P4 (sketch), Ex.P5 (Motor Vehicles Accident
Report), Ex.P6 (Accident Information Report). In addition,
documents such as the Ex.P7 (Inquest Mahazar), Ex.P8
(Post-Mortem Report), and other documents were exhibited
as Exhibits P9 to P18. The respondents did not give any
evidence but only the Insurance Policy was marked as
Ex.R1.
5. Based on the evidence of the parties, the learned
Tribunal found that the petitioners/claimants have
established that the accident was on account of the rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. On the aspect
of compensation, the learned Tribunal found that no
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
documentary evidence was produced to prove the income
of the deceased. The learned Tribunal thus took the notional
income at Rs.12,000/- per month and added 10% future
prospects in view of the fact that the deceased was 52 years
of age at the time of the accident and deducted one-third
since the deceased had three dependents and calculated the
loss of dependency in the following terms:
(Rs.12,000+10%=13200–1/3x11x12= 11,61,600/-)
6. In addition, the learned Tribunal awarded amounts for
loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss of estate,
funeral expenses and conveyance, in the following terms:
Sl.No. Amounts
Heads
(Rs.)
01 Loss of Dependency 11,61,600-00
02 Loss of love and affection 60,000.00
03 Loss of Consortium 30,000.00
04 Loss of estate 15,000.00
05 Funeral expenses 25,000.00
06 Conveyance 10,000.00
Total 13,01,600.00
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
7. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.13,01,600/-
along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. was awarded to
the petitioners/claimants.
8. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company
submits that he has two grounds of challenge. Firstly, he
contends that the interest awarded at 8% is on the higher
side. Secondly, he submits that the learned Tribunal has
wrongly taken the notional income of Rs.12,000/- per
month since the deceased was a coolie.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants on the
other hand submits that in the year 2018, the notional
income was Rs.12,500/-. Thus, the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
cannot be accepted. In addition, reliance is placed by
learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants on the
judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co.
1
Ltd. Vs. Sri Malyadri M. and Others which has been
affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Divya.
1
2026 SCC Online Kar 4090
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
V.M. and others Vs. Veerabhadrashetti. K.C. and
2
another , to contend that in the case of death, even
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. would not be excessive.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
submits that this Court cannot make any change to an
Award if there is no appeal filed by the claimants.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company cannot be taken into
consideration. An appeal is an examination of all facts and
the evidence before the Court and any error which is
apparent on the face of the record cannot be ignored by the
Court. As has been stated above, although the
petitioners/claimants have not filed an appeal, an
examination of the notional income shows that the learned
Tribunal had in fact made an error in calculating the notional
income which was Rs.12,500/- at that time.
11.1 In addition, as there are three dependents, the
amount under the head ‘Loss of Consortium’ needs to be
2
MFA No.3583/2020 vide order dated 30.07.2026 NC:2026:KHC:39850-DB
8
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000x3). The examination
of the record also reflects that the amounts awarded under
pecuniary heads have also not been awarded in accordance
with the judgments of the Supreme Court in National
3
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma
and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
4
Another . Accordingly, the loss of dependency is
recalculated as follows:
(Rs.12,500+10%=13750–1/3= 9,167 [approx]
Rs. 9167 x 11 x 12= Rs. 12,10,044/-)
12. Thus, the compensation awarded to the
petitioners/claimants is recalculated as follows:
Sl.
Heads Amounts (Rs.)
No.
01 Loss of Dependency 12,10,044-00
02 Loss of Consortium
1,20,000-00
(40,000 x 3)
03 Loss of estate 15,000-00
04 Funeral expenses 15,000-00
05 Towards conveyance 10,000-00
Total 13,70,044-00
3
(2017) 16 SCC 680
4
(2009) 6 SCC 121
9
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
13. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company that the rate of interest was
wrongly awarded by the learned Tribunal, learned counsel
for the petitioners/claimants have relied on the judgment of
this Court in Malyadri case, wherein , after analyzing the
precedents of the Supreme Court and this Court, has 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:
“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.
10
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
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]
13.1 The aforesaid view has since been considered and
affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Divya.
V.M. case, wherein the award of interest at 9% per annum,
particularly in cases involving death and permanent
disability, has been directed.
11
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
13.2 Given the aforegoing, this Court finds no ground to
interfere with the award of interest at 8% per annum.
14. Thus, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to a total
compensation in a sum of Rs. 13,70,044/- along with
interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization.
15. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following
directions:
(i) The appeal is disposed of;
(ii) The Judgment and Award dated
22.02.2019, passed in MVC No.818/2018 by
the Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Karkala, is
modified, awarding total compensation of Rs.
13,70,044/- along with interest at the rate of
8% per annum from the date of petition till
realization;
12
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
(iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned
Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed;
(iv) The appellant/Insurance company is
directed to deposit 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
claimants/respondents Nos. 1 to 3, on filing of
an appropriate application for withdrawal of
the enhanced amount;
(vi) No order as to costs.
(vii) The amount in deposit before this Court
shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith.
(viii) The Registry is directed to draw the
modified Award accordingly;
13
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54303
MFA No. 3880 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010393192019
(ix) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy
of this judgment along with its records to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Digitally signed by
TARA VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
YN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
14